1. Decree dated: 23.08.1987 for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent, of District judge Srinagar is put to execution in E.P.No.17 of 97 on the file of District Judge. So far as eject­ment part is concerned, decree stands executed. However, the execution of the decree, for re­covery of outstanding rent, the decrental amount, is in process. During pendency of the execution petition, decree holder moved an ap­plication on 31.05.2000, for arrest and deten­tion in prison of the two partners of the firm, the judgment-debtors. The executing court of District Judge, srinagar, on the very day ordered arrest and detention in civil prison of these judg­ment debtors and for the purpose issued war­rant of arrest. This order of 31.05.2000 is un­der challenge in this revision petition.

2. The impugned order is challenged in main on the ground that the order is mechani­cal, in so far as on the very day and date of 31.05.2000 when application for arrest and de­tention of judgment debtors in civil prison was moved, the court without any notice and with­out following the requirements of law, passed the order, on just askance for, to arrest and de­tain the Judgment debtors and for the purpose issued wan-ant. Neither the Judgment debtors were served notice as required under law not executing court applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case to find out if the case was fit for issuing a warrant to lodge the judg­ment debtors in civil prison to realize the decretal amount. Even the liability of the judg­ment debtors for payment was not determined in so far as the judgment debtors had raised and placed on record objection that some payments had already been made. 3. Mr. G.A. Lone, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has reiterated the above grounds in his submission before the court. He stressed that the impugned order suffers from material irregularity and error of jurisdiction in so far as neither any notice was served on judg­ment debtors nor circumstances existed to merit dispensation of notice and issuing of war­rant for arrest and detention. The case has not been addressed on legal and factual counts, resuiting in breach of provisions of Section 51 and order 21 Rule 37 of C.P.C.

4. Mr. A.K. Malik, Learned counsel for de­cree holder canvases that the execution petition has been filed within one year and even notice need not to be served on the judgment debtors. Besides in the execution petition decree holder has in addition to the mode of attachment of moveable property of judgment debtors, also prayed for their detention in civil prison. The contention of the judgment debtors that they have made some payments outside the court could not be taken into account by the court in view of provisions of order 21 Rule 2(3) of CPC. The order does not suffer from any legal infir­mity or jurisdictional error, therefore, the coun­sel prays for dismissal of the revision petition.

5. From record of District Judge Srinagar, the Court where execution proceedings are pending, it is seen that after the execution peti­tion was presented on 29.11.1997, notice has-, gone to the judgment debtors and after initially appearing, parties sought time at one stage for settlement of the matter, but on reporting fail­ure of the conciliatory attempt, the matter could not make any headway on that count. Objec­tions were filed by the judgment debtors on 01.06.1999. The court again gave time on 03.09.99 to judgment debtors to make payment, before the court ordered attachment of move-able property to the extent of decretal amount of the judgment debtors vide order dated: 26.02.2000. Thereafter, while proceedings of attachment of the moveable property was in process of implementation and under report of Nazir Tamilat, decree holders leaving this mode halfway moved an application on 31.05.2000 for arrest and detention in civil prison of the judgment debtors to force them to make pay­ments of the decretal amount. The grounds taken in the application cov

Click Here to Read the rest of this document