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

1987 Supreme(Raj) 616

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
J.S.Verma, J.
Sunil Kumar Bhargava and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Chhattar Singh - Respondent
S.B. Civil Revision No. 619 of 1983.
Decided On : 6-05-1987

The court must consider the circumstances of the case and the justification for detention in civil prison when assessing compliance with a decree.

Headnote:

Order 21, Rule 32 - Detention in Civil Prison - The court found that compliance of the decree had been made, and the circumstances of the case did not justify the order to detain the petitioners in civil prison. The impugned order was set aside.

Fact of the Case:

The executing court's order directed the detention of the petitioner in civil prison for non-compliance with a decree.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that compliance of the decree had been made, and the order to detain the petitioners in civil prison was not justified.

Issues: Non-compliance with the decree, justification for detention in civil prison.

Ratio Decidendi: The circumstances of the case did not justify the order to detain the petitioners in civil prison, especially when the directions required several acts to be performed and the original judgment debtor had passed away.

Final Decision: The revision was allowed, and the order directing the petitioners to be detained in civil prison was set aside.

JUDGMENT

1. - This is a judgment-debtor's revision against the executing court's order made under Order 21, Rule 32, Civil Procedure Code 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.
Revision allowed..

*******

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top