SHEOLAL Vs. BHAGIRATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an execution appeal of the decree holder against the order rejecting the prayer for appointment of a Receiver and sending the judgement -debtor to civil jail.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated facts giving rise to this appeal are that, the appellant -decree holder obtained and money decree with costs, for Rs. 15,150/ -, and interest (pendente lite and future) @ 6% p.a. on the principal amount, in July, 1971. The appellant filed execution application for recovery of Rs. 18,892/ -, and interest, seeking execution by two modes, viz , arrest, and detention of the respondent in civil prison, and by appointment of receiver on the land belonging to the judgment -debtor -respondent, so that the income from the said land can be paid to the decree -holder. The decree -holder produced documentary evidence as well as oral evidence. The judgment -debtor examined himself in rebuttal. During the course of the proceedings the trial court, i e. Additional District Judge, ordered to issue warrant for the arrest and detention of the judgment debtor. Against this order of the trial court, a stay order in S.B Civil 1st Appeal No. 85 of 1671 (Bhagirath v. Sheolal) was obtained from this court on 20th December, 1971, to the effect that, 'if the appellant furnishes security for the payment of decretal amount, in the event of the dismissal of his appeal he may not be sent to civil prison. The decree -holder will be free to execute the decree by attachment of other property of judgment -debtor if any'. The appellant submitted that the judgment debtor failed to comply with the aforesaid stay order, and that, inspite of his failure to furnish security of the decretal amount, the judgment debtor was not sent to civil prison, nor his properties were attached. ,

(3.) AFTER hearing the parties, the Additional District Judge, Sri Ganganagar, on 12th August, 1974 dismissed the applications filed by the appellant, holding that the decree holder has failed to satisfy the existence of any of the circumstances mentioned in Sub -clause (b) of proviso to Section 51, Code of Civil Procedure, and, therefore, commitment of the judgment -debtor to civil prison would not be legal and proper; and that, it would be neither just nor convenient to appoint a 'receiver' for agricultural land.