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

1946 Supreme(Mad) 184

HORWILL
Londa Abbayee of Pithapuram – Appellant
Versus
Badam Suryanarayana and others – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
D. Narasaraju for Petitioner.
M.V. Nagaramayya for Respondents.

Judgment.-

In execution of a Small Cause decree, the petitioner, who is the judgment-debtor, was given notice to show cause why he should not be committed to prison. He appeared and filed a counter; but on the date to which the application was posted for disposal he was absent. His objections were apparently read but overruled. The decree-holder was then ordered to pay arrest batta and when that was done, an order was issued for his arrest. In pursuance of that order he appeared before the Court; but he was released as he furnished security to file an insolvency petition. The execution petition was thereupon dismissed. The two civil revision petitions have been filed, one against the order of arrest and the other against the order overruling the petitioner’s objections.

Order 21, rule 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure makes the procedure quite clear when a decree-holder is desirous to have the judgment-debtor committed to prison. In the first place, notice must go to him. Then if he fails to appear in answer to the notice, the Court may, if the decree-holder so wishes, order his arrest. He is then brought before the Court, which should take the evidence of the decree-holder in suppor







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
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top