PARAMPREET SINGH Vs. HARKAMAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the impugned orders dtd. 18/3/2025 and 9/9/2025 passed by the learned Executing Court, Ludhiana. Vide order dtd. 18/3/2025, the Executing Court allowed the applications filed by the decree-holder under Order 21 Rule 37 CPC read with Ss. 51 and 55 CPC and under Order 21 Rule 39 CPC, directing the decree-holder to deposit subsistence allowance and issuing conditional warrants of arrest against the judgment-debtor. Subsequently, vide order dtd. 9/9/2025, the Executing Court dismissed the review petition filed by the judgment-debtor against the earlier order.

(2.) The brief facts are that a money decree in the sum of Rs.2,36,000.00 was passed ex parte on 19/10/2015 against the present petitioner. The decree-holder filed an execution petition for realization of the decretal amount. During the pendency of the execution, the decree-holder moved two applications: one under Sec. 51 read with Sec. 55 and Order 21 Rule 37 CPC seeking arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor in civil prison, and the second under Order 21 Rule 39 CPC for issuance of conditional warrants after deposit of subsistence allowance. Copies were supplied to the judgment-debtor and time was granted for reply. On the adjourned date, instead of filing reply on merits, learned counsel for the judgment-debtor raised an objection to the maintainability of the applications on the ground that an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was pending. The Executing Court, by order dtd. 18/3/2025, dismissed the objection, noted that the application under Order IX Rule 13 had already been dismissed, and allowed the decree-holder's applications, directing deposit of subsistence allowance and issuance of conditional warrants.

(3.) The judgment-debtor thereafter moved a review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC contending that the order dtd. 18/3/2025 was in violation of mandatory provisions of Sec. 51 CPC and Order 21 Rule 37 CPC, inasmuch as no show cause notice was issued to the judgment-debtor and no enquiry was conducted into his means to pay before ordering arrest and detention. The executing court, however, dismissed the review petition on 9/9/2025, holding that there was no error apparent on the face of record, as the judgment-debtor was aware of the applications filed by the decree-holder, and that he had failed to plead or prove inability to pay.