105 (1): The applicant against whom an order is made under Sub-rule (2) of the preceding rule or a respondent against whom an order is passed ex parte under Sub-rule (3) of the preceding rule or under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 23 of this order, may apply to the Court to set aside the order and if he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the application was called on for hearing, the Court shall set aside the order on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for the further hearing of the application."

It is clear that the dismissal of the execution petition comes under Order 21, Rule 104 (2) Civil Procedure Code and that the restoration of the E. P. can be done under Order 21 Rule 105 (1) Civil Procedure Code.

2) there is a specific statutory provision under Order 21 Rule 105 (1) Civil Procedure Code under which the Execution Petition could be restored on sufficient cause being shown for non-appearance. Consequently, the question of restoration by the exercise of inherent powers by the Court under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code does not arise at all

there is a specific statutory provision under Order 21 Rule 105 (1) Civil Procedure Code under which the Execution Petition could be restored on sufficient cause being shown for non-appearance. Consequently, the question of restoration by the exercise of inherent powers by the Court under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code does not arise at all

If the petitioner/DH had filed the petition seeking to set aside the orders of dismissal for default under the relevant provisions of law, the court would have passed the orders allowing his petition, hence there is no question for the doubt regarding  the provisions of law in this connection. 

Therefore the notice issued to the JD subsequent to the restoration of the original petition is a continuous process and it would be under the same provisions of law by the DH had filed the EP originally. 

The Decree holder while filing the execution petition had invoked the relevant provisions of law for executing the decree in his favor.

Therefore it becomes pertinent to the executing court to issue notice to the JD/respondent to record  his objection before passing any orders/judgment on the petition filed by the petitioner/DH.

Thus when the petition which was dismissed for default was restored, it would be restored to the original stage and since the same has been restored, the court might have insisted to issue notice to the JD under the original provisions of law, though the issue of notice was not necessary since the case has been restored only after hearing the JD and recording his objections.

You may obtain the certified copy of the order sheet/notes paper/docket sheet of the case bundle  held by court and peruse the orders passed by the executing court. If you are aggrieved by any such order you may prefer a revision petition before the high court venting out your grievances while seeking relief or remedy to this.

There is no provision to issue notice under order 21 Rule 22 second time 

Your lawyer is correct 

notice could have been issued under section 151 of cpc under inherent powers of court 

From your detailed contents of the subsequent post it can be observed that the supreme of the executing court has erred in sending the notice to the JD once again especially when the court has restored the petition ignoring the objections by the respondent.

It is deemed that the JD is inside the case when the court has restored the case by setting aside the dismissal order hence it is not necessary to issue notice to JD once again. 

If there's any orders passed by court in this regard you may prefer a revision petition against this decision before high court to quash this order. 

1. Inherent power can be invoked at any stage for the purpose of doing justice unless there is a specific provision which restricts the inherent power.

2. The notice is under 151 CPC.

Execution court can issue notice again