Report No. 27
Order XXI, rule 54(1)
A recommendation has been made in the Fourteenth Report1 to the effect, that under rule 54 an intimation should be given to the judgment-debtor to attend the court on a given date to take notice of further steps in the matter. It is considered that a literal implementation of this recommendation might cause practical difficulties. On the date on which the attachment is issued under rule 54, the court would not be in a position to fix all the future dates in the various stages. Again, if a provision is inserted to the effect that the judgment-debtor should attend at each subsequent hearing and take notice from time to time of the various stages, that also may fail in practice, because of events (e.g., an application by a third party under rule 58) that often interrupt the progress of the proceedings. Therefore, a provision in a modified form has been introduced, to the effect, that the proclamation shall intimate to him the date on which the terms of the proclamation of the sale would be settled under rule 66. This amendment, while not obviating the necessity of giving notice to the judgment-debtor at subsequent stages (where such notice is required by law), will save the time taken in the issue of notice under rule 66.
1. 14th Report, Vol. I.
Order XXI, rule 54 (2)
The amendment to rule 54(2) provides that in the case of a land situated in a village, a copy of the order should be affixed in the office of the village panchayat also. This is intended to secure adequate publicity for the attachment.
Order XXI, rule 54 (3)
Local Amendments made by several High Courts provide that the attachment should be effective from the date of the order, in the case of a transferee without consideration. The object of this amendment is to nullify any attempt by a judgment-debtor to deal with his property between the date of the order and the date of the actual attachment. These amendments, in a way, constitute a qualification to the general rule laid down in section 64 and were made in implementation of the recommendation of the Civil Justice Committee1. It is, however, felt that the insertion of such a provision would have the effect of making the attachment operative at two different dates in relation to two different classes of persons (transferees without consideration and other transferees), and that there are no strong reasons to justify such a special provision departing from the ordinary rule2 as to the point of time at which an attachment becomes effective.
1. Civil Justice Committee (1925) Report, p. 39, para. 24.
2. On this point, see AIR 1928 PC 139.
Back
