SENTHIL KUMAR Vs. K M N SURENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, is directed against the order made in E.P. No. 92 of 2004 is A.C. No. 5 of 2000, dated 3.9.2005 on the file of IV Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore. The Respondent herein filed the Execution Petition under Order 21, Rule 37, C.P.C. for arrest and detention of the Petitioners to recover the decree amount in Arbitration Case No. 5 of 2000, awarded, by decree dated 26.8.2000.

(2.) The Petitioners resisted the Execution Petition contending that the Registrar of Chits without conducting any enquiry and without affording any opportunity, passed the decree. It is further contended that after the decree was passed, the Respondent gave the Title Deed and Promissory Note signed by the Petitioner and his wife to one Mr. Palanisamy, who has filed a Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- by using the blank signed papers and the said Suit is pending and at this stage, the Respondent has filed the Execution Petition only with an intention to harass the Petitioners. The Executing Court, by order dated 30.9.2005, directed the arrest and detention of the Petitioners solely on the ground that the First Petitioner is receiving monthly pension and he has not been declared as an insolvent and unless an order of arrest is passed, the Petitioner would not pay the decree amount and therefore, ordered arrest.

(3.) In support of the contention, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jolly George Varghese and another v. The Bank of Cochin, 1980 AIR(SC) 470 and Ram Narayan Agarwal, etc. v. State of U.P. and others, 1983 4 SCC 276