Issuance of warrants of arrest against a judgment-debtor requires proof of financial means to pay and intent to evade payment, absent which warrants are unlawful.

JUDGMENT :

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.

1. Prayer in the present Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside the impugned orders dated 31.07.2025 (Annexure P-8) and 14.08.2025 (Annexure P-9), passed by the learned Executing Court in Execution Application No. 473 dated 01.05.2024, which is now pending for 30.08.2025, whereby the learned Executing Court has issued conditional warrants of arrest against the petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent-plaintiff Ritu (since deceased) had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,00,000/-, comprising Rs. 3,45,000/- as principal amount towards arrears of rent/mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month, along with Rs. 1,05,000/- as interest calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from June 2016 till April 2018, i.e. upto the date of delivery of possession, and further claiming electricity charges, repair charges of the building, as well as litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- against the petitioner-defendant.

2.1 In the said suit, it was averred that the respondent-plaintiff had filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, vide Rent Application No. 30997/2013 dated 20.12.2013, on various grounds. The learned Rent Controller passed an order against the petitioner-defendant on 30.07.2016. The appeal preferred by the petitioner- defendant was dismissed on 08.12.2017 by the learned Appellate Authority. Thereafter, the respondent-plaintiff filed an execution before Sh. Balkar Singh, Rent Controller, Jalandhar, in which warrants of possession were issued. On 07.04.2018, the petitioner-defendant handed over the keys of the premises to the respondent-plaintiff in Court. While accepting the keys of the premises, the respondent-plaintiff made a specific statement before the Court that the petitioner-defendant had caused huge damage to the property and the front wall, and that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- approximately would be required for proper repairs. Ultimately, the respondent-plaintiff prayed for recovery of Rs. 5,00,000/- along with interest.

2.2 The suit was contested by the petitioner-defendant. In the written statement, preliminary objections were raised to the effect that the suit was not maintainable and contained frivolous claims on account of mesne profits and other alleged charges.

2.3 Replication was filed and as many as four issues were framed including relief. The parties led their respective evidence before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, and ultimately, the suit was decreed to the effect that the respondent-plaintiff was held entitled to arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month, along with interest and litigation expenses.

2.4 Thereafter, the respondent-plaintiff filed an execution before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division). A perusal of the interim order dated 06.07.2024 (Annexure P-2) shows that the execution was filed within a period of two years from the date of decree, and therefore, no notice was required to be issued to the judgment-debtor (JD). It was further ordered that the list of properties of the JD be furnished by 05.08.2024.

2.5 However, the interim order dated 09.01.2025 (Annexure P-6) shows that the list of properties was never furnished. Instead, learned counsel for the decree-holder (DH) (respondent) moved an application under Order XXI Rule 37 CPC, making averments therein that, to the best of the knowledge of the decree-holder, the judgment-debtor (petitioner) did not possess any movable or immovable property, and therefore, notic