JUDGMENT :

Nidhi Gupta, J.

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the Judgment Debtor under Article 227 of Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 10.02.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Abohar whereby the objections filed by the petitioner have been dismissed and conditional warrants of arrest are issued by the learned Executing Court against the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner is an indigent person. He has no movable or immovable assets. As such, he is unable to pay the decretal amount. It is submitted that even an offer was made by the petitioner before the learned Executing Court that as and when he has the funds available, he shall duly make payment of decretal amount. The petitioner has no means to pay the execution amount nor he has transferred any property after initiation of the suit in which decree has been passed. The Decree Holder has also not produced any document or proof to show that the petitioner is able to satisfy the decree. Even no evidence has been produced by the Decree Holder which proves that the petitioner has sufficient means to pay the decretal amount. Despite this, conditional warrants of arrest have been issued vide impugned order dated 10.02.2025 (Annexure P-5). However, in view of the above facts, the petitioner cannot be sent to civil imprisonment. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner relies upon the following judgments:-

'1 . M.V.Raju vs. The Manager, Indian Overseas Bank" Law Finder Doc Id # 123458, Kerala High Court,

2. 'T.K.N.Pitchaimuthu and others vs. The Manager Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Palani Branch Palani, Dindigul District," Law Finder Doc Id # 954829, Madras High Court, and

3. C.RP. (PD) NO. 3747 of 2011 & MP No.1 of 2011 titled as 'Ramasamy vs. Pushpa" High Court of Madras No other argument is raised on behalf of the petitioner.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner/Judgment Debtor and perused the case file in great detail.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/Decree Holder/respondent herein, had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.6,23,930/-i.e. Rs.4,22,000/- as principal amount and Rs.2,01,930/- towards interest. Vide judgment and decree dated 29.02.2020 (Annexure P-1), the suit of the plaintiff was decreed with costs for recovery of Rs.4,22,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from 08.04.2015 till the date of order; and further interest @ 6% per annum on the decretal amount from the date of decree till actual realization. It appears from the record that no appeal was filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 29.02.2020. Thereafter, the Decree Holder filed present Execution Application bearing No. EXE-235/2020 (Annexure P-2). In the said execution proceedings, the petitioner appeared only after conditional warrants of arrest were issued against him. The petitioner then filed an objection application dated Nil (Annexure P-3) for recalling of conditional warrants of arrest issued against him and for acceptance of the objection application. Reply thereto dated Nil (Annexure P-4) was filed by the Decree Holder. Vide impugned order dated 10.02.2025 (Annexure P-5), the above said application of the petitioner has been dismissed.

5. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that he has no means to pay the decretal amount; and that the Decree Holder has failed to produce any evidence to show that the petitioner has any means whatsoever to satisfy the decree. The above said objections of the petitioner were rejected by the Executing Court vide impugned order dated 10.02.2025 for the following reasons:-

"4. As per the objections filed on the behalf of the JD, he has no means to pay the decretal amount and is not having any property to satisfy the decree, hence, cannot be sent to civil imprisonment. The JD had contested the main suit throughout the trial and was not a pauper. s per the j