The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of fair and just procedural essence, particularly in the context of imprisoning individuals for non-payment of debts, as emphasized in the decision of Jolly George Verghese's case.

JUDGMENT

Suraj Govindaraj, J. - The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or order setting aside the Order dt. 02.04.2016 passed by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, in Ex. C. 11/2016 whereby the Arrest Warrant was issued against the petitioner without issuing a show cause notice upon him (Annexure-A);

b. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or order setting aside the Order dt. 26.04.2016 passed by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, in Ex. C.11/2016 reissuing the Arrest Warrant with the assistance of Urwa Police (Annexure-A);

c. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order setting aside the Order dt. 31.05.2016, passed by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, in Ex. C.11/2016 whereby the office of the Court below was directed to reissue Arrest Warrant as per its order dt. 26.04.2016 (Annexure-A);

d. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or order setting aside the order dt. 18.06.2016 passed by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, in Ex. C.11/2016, whereby the Court below permitted the Court Amin to break open the lock with Police aid and reissued the Delivery Warrant (Annexure-A).

2. Sri. P.P. Hegde, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order dated 2.04.2016 and the order of re-issuance of arrest warrant dated 26.04.2016 and 31.05.2016, as also the order dated 18.06.2016 permitting the Court Amin to break open the lock with the police help have been challenged in this petition.

3. Sri. P.P. Hegde, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the first order dated 2.04.2016 was passed, as also subsequent orders had been passed by the trial Court, the requirement of Section 51 of CPC and Order 21 Rule 37 of the I Schedule of the CPC having not been followed by the trial Court, inasmuch as there is no notice which has been issued by the trial Court calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be committed to civil prison, without such show cause notice having been issued, an arrest warrant could not have been issued. He further submits that the orders are contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jolly George Verghese vs. Bank of Cochin [(1980)2 SCC 360].

4. Sri. Cyril Prasad Pais, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-decree holder would, however, submit that the trial Court has taken into consideration the fact that the decree which had been passed in favour of the respondent had been challenged in RFA No. 34/2016 wherein a conditional interim order had been passed directing the Judgment debtor to deposit an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs. Since the said amount had not been deposited, it was clear that the Judgment debtor was not willing to comply with the decree and make payment of the due amounts and as such, he submits that the same would suffice the requirement of Section 51 and Order 21 Rule 37 of CPC.

5. Heard Sri. P.P. Hegde, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Cyril Prasad Pais, learned counsel for the respondent.

6. The short question that arises for consideration is, whether the trial Court could have issued an arrest warrant without issuing a show cause notice as required under Section 51 and Order 21 Rule 37 of CPC?

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Jolly George Verghese's case (supra) more particularly at paragraph Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13 has held as under:

"10. Equally meaningful is the import of Article 21 of the Constitution in the context of imprisonment for non-payment of debts. The high value of human dignity and the worth of the human person enshrined in Article 21, read with Articles 14 and 19, obligates the State not to incarcerate except under law which is fair, just and reasonable in its procedural essence. Maneka Gandhi case [(1978) 1 SCC 248] as developed further in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration [(1978) 4 SCC 494: 1979 SCC (Cri.) 155], Sita Ram v. Sta