SADKIK AKARAM Vs. KULDEEP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner/defendant/judgment debtor (J.D.) challenging the order dtd. 21/11/2023 passed by 3rd Civil Judge Class-I, Tikamgarh in execution case no.5A/22 whereby upon respondent/plaintiff/decree holder (D.H.)'s application under Order 21 rule 37 CPC, executing Court has on the one hand directed the petitioner/J.D. to show cause why he should not be sent to civil prison and on the other hand, directed the respondent/D.H. to furnish details of the period for which he wants to send the petitioner/J.D. in civil prison.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/J.D. submits that although by the impugned order itself the petitioner has been asked to show cause why he should not be sent to civil prison but at the same time, executing Court has recorded finding in earlier part of same paragraph to the effect that petitioner/J.D. deserves to be sent to civil prison that too in the circumstances where respondent/D.H. himself has filed application with the contention that there is no property of the ownership of petitioner/J.D. and he has already transferred entire property in the name of his wife and sons. He further submits that by filing reply to the application, it was specifically contended by the petitioner that he has no property in his name and he has also not transferred any property to his wife and sons and since his business has already been closed, therefore, he is ready to deposit decreetal amount in installments, from the salary being paid to him by his employer (a private businessman), where he is doing job. He also submits that in these circumstances, no order of sending the petitioner in civil prison could have been passed that too without considering the explanation yet to be given by the petitioner in compliance of the impugned order.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent/D.H. supports the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the misc. petition.