JAI PAL Vs. HARI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of the executing Court dated 10.1.1989 whereby in an execution under Order 21, Rule 32 the judgment debtor was called upon to obey the decree before 23.1.1989 failing which they would be detained in civil prison till the decree was enforced and obeyed by it. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no proceedings for contempt of court could be taken by the executing Court and the issue framed by the executing Court itself was wrong and illegal. According to him, the judgment-debtor has committed no contempt of Court. In support of his contention he referred to Naib Tehsildar Pirthi Singh v. Harbans Singh and others, 1987 PunLJ 362.

(2.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties I do not find any merit in this petition. It is true that the issue framed as to whether the judgment-debtor have committed any Contempt of Court is not happily worded. However, the execution-application is under Order 21 Rule 32 and is being proceeded as such. The judgment debtor has been given time to comply with the decree after holding that they had wilfully disobeyed the decree for injunction and have made themselves liable to penal action. Order 21, Rule 32 itself contemplates that if any opportunity is given to the judgment-debtor for obeying the decree and he fails to do so he may be detained in civil prison or the decree may be enforced by the attachment of his property or by both. That being so no fault can be found with the impugned order. Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Since further proceedings were stayed by this Court at the time of motion hearing the parties have been directed to appear in the executing Court on 16.10.1989 when the period of one month will be allowed to the judgment debtor to comply with the decree failing which the executing Court will proceed under Order 21, Rule 32 for further action.