HARI KISHAN Vs. HARI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decree-holder-respondent filed an application under Rule 37 of Order 21 and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the arrest of the appellant-judgment- debtors (two brothers on the ground that they possess sufficient means to pay the decretal amount, but have refused and are reluctant to pay the same. The learned Sub-Judge, before whom the said execution application was contested by the appellants agreed with the respondents; and ordered that each of the appellant- judgment-debtors be detained in the civil prison for a period of 30 days from the date of the arrest. Warrants of arrest were ordered to be issued. The present excution first appeal has been filed by the appellant-judgment-debtors against the said order of the learned Sub-Judge.

(2.) The decree in this case was passed on June 10, 1953 for the recovery of Rs. 11,680.00 and costs which amounted to Rs. 977.50. The decree-holder-respondent filed execution applications on several occasions, but no recovery could be made. A house belonging to the appellants was also attached, but was ultimately held to be exempt from attachment and sale, being the only residential house of the appellants. It was under these circumstances that the respondent felt obliged to file the aforesaid application under Rule 37 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the arrest of the appellants.

(3.) The respondent-decree-holder examined two witnesses, AW1 Amar Nath, and AW2 Rameshwari Dass, besides himself. It was stated by them that the appellants were receiving rent from the tenants in their three storeyed house. Hari Kishan, appellant was said to be employed in a shop, but Rishiram, the other appellant, was said to be running a shop dealing in electrical goods. The goods in the said shop were stated to be worth Rs. 15,000.00 to Rs. 20,000.00. None of the witnesses has any personal knowledge about Rishiram's ownership of the said electrical goods shop. One of the witnesses stated that the rent from the house was to the extent of Rs. 350.00 per month. The decree-holder stated that the rent was Rs. 250.00 per month. Hari Kishan, appellant was said to be in receipt of a salary of Rs. 250.00 per month.