Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Shashikant Arvindkumar Rajput and others, filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 29.11.2025 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & ACJM, Chikhli in Special Execution No. 1 of 2024. The executing court had ordered attachment of several land parcels (Block Nos. 508/3, 508/9, etc.) under Order 21 Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for recovery of a decretal amount of Rs.58,81,676/-. The petitioners claimed that they were not parties to the suit or the decree; they had purchased the plots from third parties prior to the decree. Specifically, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 purchased plot Nos. 21 and 22 from Shaileshkumar Naginbhai Patel by registered sale deeds dated 11.01.2022 and 02.11.2021 respectively, and petitioner No. 3 purchased plot No. 13 from Kamehwar Jawahar Singh by a registered sale deed dated 16.05.2022, who had earlier purchased it from Shaileshkumar Naginbhai Patel. The petitioners contended that the executing court attached the properties without issuing any notice to them, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The High Court, after hearing learned advocate Mr. Daxesh Barot for the petitioners, found that the attachment order was passed without notice to the petitioners, who were in possession and claimed title. The court held that such an order is illegal and cannot be sustained. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition, quashed the attachment order, and remanded the matter back to the executing court for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Attachment of Property - Order 21 Rule 54 CPC - Notice to Third Parties - The executing court attached the petitioners' property without issuing any notice to them, who were not judgment-debtors but purchasers of the property prior to the decree. The High Court held that attachment without notice to persons in possession or claiming title is illegal and violative of natural justice. The order was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioners. (Paras 1-6) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Certiorari - The High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to quash an order passed by the executing court which was without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice. The court held that such orders are amenable to certiorari. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the attachment order passed under Order 21 Rule 54 CPC without issuing notice to the petitioners, who are third-party purchasers of the attached property, is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The order dated 29.11.2025 passed below application Exh. 16 by the Ld. Principal Senior Civil Judge & ACJM, Chikhli in Special Execution No. 1 of 2024 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the executing court for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
Law Points
- Order 21 Rule 54 CPC
- Attachment before judgment
- Notice to third-party purchasers
- Principles of natural justice
- Writ of certiorari under Article 227
