TEHAL SINGH Vs. SHIVJI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As common questions of law permeate Civil Revision Nos. 618 and 1255 of 1985, they invite a common judgment.

(2.) Shivji Ram filed a suit against Tehal Singh, petitioner, for the recovery of Rs. 2662.50. The learned trial Judge decreed the suit, with costs on December 7, 1982. Shivji Ram filed an execution petition on 21st May, 1983. Certain articles viz. bicycles, transistor, radio, tables, chairs, iron boxes etc. were sought to be attached and sold through public auction. Tehal Singh, judgment-debtor, filed an objection-petition contending that the articles were exempt from attachment; the debt to be deemed to have been discharged under the Punjab Agricultural Indebtedness Relief Act, 1975, and that the interest and costs were excessive. He also prayed that in the event of failure of his objections, he be allowed to make payment through easy instalments. The decree-holder contested the objections. The objections-petition was dismissed on 9th February, 1983. An attachment warrant was issued. The brother of Tehal Singh filed objections, and the same were rejected by the executing Court vide order dated 10th September, 1983. An appeal against that order failed and was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala. Warrants of attachment were repeatedly received back unexecuted.

(3.) Shivji Ram, decree-holder, filed an application under Rule 37 of Order 21, Civil Procedure Code, for coercing the judgment-debtors to satisfy the decree in question and that the judgment-debtor should be arrested and detained in a Civil prison. A notice was issued to the judgment-debtor to show cause why he should not be committed to the Civil prison. Tehal Singh failed to make any satisfactory reply. Consequently, the warrants of his arrest were issued. He was arrested and produced in Court on 28th January, 1985. He made a prayer that he should be given some time to arrange money so that he could satisfy the decree. The prayer of the judgment-debtor was accepted on furnishing the security and the case was adjourned to 12th February, 1985, for making payment.