SUNIL KUMAR BHARGAVA AND ORS. Vs. CHHATTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a judgment -debtor's revision against the executing court's order made under Order 21, Rule 32, CPC directing detention of the petitioner in civil prison. The decree was passed directing the judgment -debtor, the predecessor in interest of the petitioners, to do certain things. The grievance made by the decree -holder was that compliance of the direction contained in the decree has not been made. However, thereafter spot inspection was made, but the learned District Judge found that two out of three directions had been fully complied with, while the third remained to be completed. Subsequently, another inspection of the spot was made by the District Judge of which the report is dated 4 -8 -1984. A perusal of the report shows that even the third direction has been complied with & the only difference is that a slight variation therein has been made, but that too has been accepted by the decree holder. In such a situation, when compliance of the decree has been made, the question is, whether the direction of detain the petitioners in civil prison should be sustained. In my opinion, the circumstance of the case do not justify such an order being upheld particularly when the directions require several acts to be performed, and the original judgment debtor having died his legal representatives are required to comply with the decree. The impugned order is therefore, liable to be set aside.

(2.) CONSEQUENTLY , the revision is allowed. The order directing the petitioners to be detained in civil prison is set aside. No order as costs.