RAM SINGH Vs. NIRANJAN SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Supervisory jurisdiction of this court u/Art. 227 of the Constitution is invoked for assailing the orders passed by the courts-below dated 10/5/2016 and 12/1/2017.

(2.) The facts reveal that in a case relating to execution of award rendered by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vidisha (M.P.) of Rs. 84,500/- and interest @ 12% per annum in favour of the petitioner/claimant on 30/11/1999, an application under section 151 r/w Order 21 Rule 54 CPC was preferred by the decree holder seeking attachment of immovable property of the judgment-debtor/respondent No. 1 herein being owner of the vehicle which was not insured and the same was decided by order dated 10/5/2016 directing the decree holder to pay amount of compensation in easy installments of Rs. 50,000/- per annum along with interest. 2. 1 When the judgment-debtor did not pay any heed to the said direction of the court-below, another application u/O XXI Rule 37 CPC was filed by the decree holder which was disposed of by the present impugned order dated 12/1/2017 directing that recovery/attachment warrant be issued in respect of the property of the respondent No. 1/judgment-debtor but the prayer for sending the judgment-debtor/respondent No. 1 to civil prison was rejected. 2. 2 The grievance of the petitioner is in regard to that part of the impugned order dated 12/1/2017 which rejects prayer for direction that respondent No. 1-/owner of the vehicle be sent to civil prison. 2. 3 After hearing learned counsel for the rival parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the decree in question has yet been satisfied despite passage of 19 years. This court took cognisance of the matter on 5/5/2018 while issuing notice to the respondent. The respondent No. 1 - Niranjan Singh entered appearance on 16/6/2017 by filing power of attorney where after despite lapse of more than one year he has cared to even file reply. 2. 4 Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that none of the pre-requisites of Order 21 Rule 37 CPC are satisfied as the respondent No. 1 has neither alienated his property nor is absconding and therefore no ground was available to the court-below to send the respondent No. 1 to civil prison and thus the court-below has rightly passed the impugned order. 2. 5 It is further seen from the record that the application u/O XXI Rule 37 CPC was moved by the petitioner vide P/5 dated 20/10/2016. The response to the said application vide P/6 dated 6/12/2016 was to the effect that the respondent Not 1 is neither attempting to alienate the property nor is absconding. 2. 6 The proviso to Order 21 Rule 37 CPC is to the following effect:-

(3.) This court is of the view that the instant case is attended with compelling circumstances where the decree-holder/claimants have been deprived of their legitimate due since last nearly 19 years by dilatory tactics of judgment-debtor who left no stone unturned to misuse the judicial process to the hilt. 3. 1 The conduct and demeanour of the judgment-debtor/respondent No. 1 herein clearly demonstrates that there is a deliberate attempt to somehow postpone execution of the decree. The judgment-debtor has come out with any plea of nonavailability of financial resources neither any such contention is raised by the learned counsel for the judgment-debtor before this court or before the lower court and therefore this court is left with no option but to infer from the palpable inactivity of the judgment-debtor that he is deliberately avoiding execution of the decree. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jolly George Verghese and another v. the Bank of Cochin, AIR 1980 SC 470 supports the said view of this court, relevant para 11 of which is reproduced below:-