SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1978 Supreme(Ker) 183

Judges : P.JANAKI AMMA
MATHAI - Appellant
Versus
KURIAN - Respondent
Case No : C.R.P. No. 3542 of 1977
Decided On : 09/22/1978
Advocates Appeared :
Joseph Augustine; For Petitioner T.K. Kurien; For Respondent

The court must strictly adhere to the procedure for execution by arrest and detention as prescribed in the Civil Procedure Code, ensuring the judgment-debtor's opportunity to contest and adduce evidence, and satisfying the conditions under the proviso to S.51 before ordering detention in prison.

Headnote:

Execution - Civil Procedure Code - S.51, S.58, Order XXI R.11-A, Order XXI R.37, Order XXI R.40 - The court's confusion regarding the procedure for execution of a decree for money by arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor. The court's violation of the proviso to S.51 and irregularity in acting on the affidavit of the decree-holder before the issue of warrant under Order XXI R.37. The revision petition is allowed, and the order of the Munsiff is set aside.

Fact of the Case:

The judgment-debtor in a decree for realization of money sought execution by sale of properties and arrest and detention. The court entered a finding based on the decree-holder's affidavit without giving the judgment-debtor an opportunity to contest. The court's order violated the proviso to S.51 and the procedure under Order XXI R.40.

Finding of the Court:

The court was confused about the procedure for execution by arrest and detention. The court's order violated the proviso to S.51 and the procedure under Order XXI R.40. The revision petition was allowed, and the order of the Munsiff was set aside.

Issues: Confusion regarding the procedure for execution by arrest and detention, violation of the proviso to S.51, and irregularity in acting on the decree-holder's affidavit before the issue of warrant under Order XXI R.37.

Ratio Decidendi: The court must follow the procedure under S.51, S.58, Order XXI R.11-A, Order XXI R.37, and Order XXI R.40 for execution by arrest and detention. The judgment-debtor must be given an opportunity to contest and adduce evidence as directed in Order XXI R.40. The court must record reasons and satisfy the conditions under the proviso to S.51 before ordering detention in prison.

Final Decision: The revision petition is allowed, and the order of the Munsiff is set aside. The execution petition is remanded for fresh disposal according to law.

Judgment :-

1. The judgment-debtor in a decree for realisation of money is the revision petitioner. Execution was sought for realisation of the decree amount both by sale of the petitioner's properties and by arrest and detention of the petitioner after notice under Order XXI R.37 CPC. The petitioner did not appear in court on issue of notice. On 28 5 74, the Court entered a finding on the basis of an affidavit filed by the decree¬holder-respondent that the petitioner is possessed of means to pay the decree debt and that he neglected to pay the same. The court issued warrant for the arrest of the petitioner. The petitioner moved for withdrawal of the arrest warrant and filed objection to the execution petition. The case was being adjourned for enquiry. While so, the petitioner paid some amount towards the decree debt. For some time, there was stay of execution under Act 30 of 1975. After the promulgation of Ordinance 1 of 1977, an application was filed by the petitioner for relief under that Ordinance. It was, however, dismissed. The decree-holder thereafter moved for the issue of warrant. The court passed the following order on 9th September, 1977.

"In this E.P. the decree-holder seek to execute the decree by arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor in civil prison. E. A. disposed of. Means already proved. Issue arrest warrant."

The revision petition is directed against the above order.

2. The Court appears to have been labouring under a confusion regarding the procedure to be followed in connection with execution of a decree for money by arrest and detention of the judgment - debtor. I notice the same confusion in a number of cases that have come up before me recently.

3. S.51 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the Court to order execution of a decree by arrest and detention in prison of the judgment-debtor in appropriate cases for the periods specified in S.58 CPC No order for detention of the judgment-debtor in civil prison is to be made where the total amount of the decree does not exceed five hundred rupees. (See S.58 (1A). Proviso to S.51 directs that execution by detention in prison shall not be ordered unless, the judgment-debtor is given an opportunity of showing cause why he should not be committed to prison. Ordinarily in cases where the decree-holder wants execution by arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor, he would file an affidavit showing that the conditions exist for ordering such execution. Order XXI R.11-A of the Code as amended in 1976 makes it obligatory to file an affidavit showing the grounds of arrest, along with the application for execution. Order XXI R.37 gives the discretion to the Court to issue a notice instead of a warrant of arrest, calling upon the judgment-debtor to appear on a specified date and show cause why he should not be committed to the civil prison. Where appearance is not made in obedience to the notice, the court, at the instance of the decree-holder would issue a warrant for the arrest of the judgment-debtor. The warrant would contain a direction that the judgment-debtor be brought before Court unless in the meanwhile the amount which has been ordered to pay with interest and costs is paid by him. If the judgment-debtor appears in obedience to notice or is brought before Court on arrest, the Court should conduct an enquiry as detailed in Order XXI, R.40. The Court should hear the decree-holder and take all such evidence as may be produced by him in support of the application for execution. Order XXI R.40(1) does not dispense with taking of evidence even in cases where an affidavit has been filed under Order XXI, R.11-A. If any witnesses are examined, the judgment-debtor should be allowed to cross-examine them. Thereafter, the Court should give an opportunity to the judgment-debtor to show cause why he should not be committed to a civil prison. Upon the conclusion of the enquiry, the Court may make an order for the detention of the judgment-debtor and may cause him to be a










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top