ANAND SINGH Vs. PRAHLAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been directed against the order dated 10.3.1998 passed by MACT, Sonepat. By this order, the learned Tribunal relying on the provisions of Order 21 Rule 30 C.P.C. has issued the warrants of arrest of the petitioner-JD. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents.

(2.) MR . Bansal, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner inter alia submits that the provisions of Section 51 C.P.C. have not been complied with in this case before ordering the issue of warrants inasmuch as no show cause notice was issued to the petitioners. He, however, submits that in view of the observations made in the order dated 21.4.1998, the petitioners undertake to deposit the sum of Rs. 10,000/- in the executing Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel of the parties and having perused the impugned order, I am of the view that the arrest of the petitioners could not be ordered without complying with first proviso under sub-clause (e) of Section 51 CPC. It is not disputed that in the present case show cause notice was not issued to the petitioners before ordering the issue of warrants by the trial Court. Accordingly, the portion of the impugned order by which warrants of arrest was issued against the petitioners is set aside. This order is, however, subject to the condition that the petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in the executing Court within 10 days from today. The learned executing Court may, however, pass fresh order after complying with the provisions of section 51 as indicated herein above. It is further made clear that the respondents-claimants shall be at liberty to initiate the proceedings under Section 174 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, if so advised. The petition is disposed of in the manner indicated herein above. Ordered accordingly.