The issuance of an arrest warrant against a judgment debtor must follow due process, including a proper application stating grounds for arrest, as mandated by relevant CPC provisions.

ORDER :

PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J.

Heard learned counsel - Sri Siddharth Suman for petitioner as well as learned counsel - Sri Sunil S. Rao for respondents.

2. The petitioner/judgment debtor is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 13.6.2025 passed by the LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Execution Petition No.2553/2023. By the impugned order, the Executing Court issued arrest warrant against the petitioner/judgment debtor and also issued direction to the PSI of the concerned jurisdiction to assist the Bailiff to execute the arrest warrant against the petitioner/ judgment debtor.

3. The petitioner/judgment debtor has filed a suit in O.S. No.2408/2022 before the City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, for the relief of permanent injunction. In the said suit filed by the petitioner/judgment debtor, the respondents/decree holders preferred a counter-claim, apart from filing the written statement.

4. Alongwith the suit, the petitioner/judgment debtor filed an application for Temporary Injunction restraining the respondents/decree holders from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property/premises. The said application was allowed by the exparte order dated 7.4.2022 and later confirmed on 15.7.2023.

5. Subsequently, on 7.7.2022 the respondents/decree holders filed I.A. No.2 under Section 151 of the CPC for a direction to the petitioner/judgment debtor to deposit the arrears of rent in a sum of Rs.96,79,140/-.

6. This being the state of affairs, petitioner/judgment debtor (plaintiff) filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC to reject the counter-claim filed by the respondents/defendants/decree holders for not disclosing the cause of action and the same having not preceded by a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The trial Court taking note of the same rejected the counter-claim filed by the respondents/defendants vide its order dated 15.7.2023.

7. The petitioner/judgment debtor being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court on I.A. No.2 preferred Writ Petition No.20899/2023, wherein this Court vide its order dated 25.1.2024 directed the petitioner/judgment debtor to deposit a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- and accordingly, petitioner/judgment debtor issued a post-dated cheque, but the same was dishonoured. Subsequently, this Court vide order dated 19.2.2024 directed the petitioner/judgment debtor to deposit additional sum of Rs.15,00,000/- on or before 4.3.2024, which the petitioner was unable to comply. Hence, the said writ petition came to be dismissed on 4.3.2024.

8. It is the case of petitioner/judgment debtor that he vacated the 2^nd floor of the suit schedule premises in December-2021 and handed over the possession to Respondent No.2. It is also contended by petitioner/judgment debtor that he has paid a total sum of Rs.2,51,43,406/- including the component of cash vide Annexure-F.

9. When things stood thus, it is contended by learned counsel that on 13.6.2025 the Executing Court issued arrest warrant against the petitioner/judgment debtor in the Execution Petition. It is further contended that no show cause notice was issued and notice was not duly served on the judgment debtor and the petitioner/ judgment debtor was not even aware of pendency of the execution proceedings. Learned counsel further contends that the Executing Court proceeded to issue arrest warrant and the petitioner/judgment debtor came to be arrested on 2.7.2025 and on the very same day, an application was fi