IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

rd

ON THE 23 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 250 of 2026 M/S INDUS RESIDENCY PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS Versus SHAILENDRA SHARMA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sanjay Agrawal - Senior Advocate with Shri Siddharth Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Saket Agrawal - Advocate for the respondents.

ORDER The present petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Executing Court dated 23.12.2025, whereby the Executive Court has arrived at a satisfaction that since there is a money decree against the judgement debtors, which he is in no mood to comply, therefore, it is a case fit for issuance of warrant to confine the judgement-debtors petitioners in Civil Jail and therefore, granted time to the decree holder to deposit the requisite amount for confining the judgement-debtors in Civil Jail and observed that after deposit of amount, the Court may proceed to issue warrant for confining the petitioners-judgement debtors to Civil Jail.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the aforesaid order passed by the judgement debtor is nothing, but arm- twisting of the judgement debtors, because earlier judgement debtors had deposited an amount of Rs.35.25 lakhs, which is 25% of the principal decretal amount before the Executive Court on 23.12.2022, which was withdrawn by the decree holder upon furnishing surety of an impersonator and the judgement debtors have already filed an application before the Executive Court to enquire into the matter upon which the Executive Court has directed the concerned police authorities to conduct enquiry into the matter. Now, as the decree holders are apprehending adverse action against them on criminal side, therefore, as arm-twisting tactics, they have moved application before the Executive court for confining the judgement debtors in civil prison, though there were no facts, nor circumstances available before the Executive Court to confine the judgement debtors/petitioners in civil prison.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners-judgement debtors submits that there is a judgement and decree dated 31.01.2022 against the present petitioners directing the present petitioners to pay an amount to Rs.1.41 crore to the decree holder along with interest @ 7% per annum from 31.03.2010 till date of judgement and @ 6% per annum from the date of judgement till actual realization. But it is argued that the Executing Court has gravely erred in straightaway proceeding to issue warrant of arrest against the petitioners and the Executing Court has not acted as per Section 51 CPC. Learned Senior Counsel points out that as per Section 51 of CPC, the option before the Executing Court of arrest and detention in prison is the third option and it can be exercised only when the first two options have failed and most importantly, the option of attachment and sale of the property of the judgement debtors has to be first exercised and the Executing Court without exploring the said option, in the first instance has proceeded to order arrest and detention of the judgement debtors, which should not be given stamp of approval of this Court.

4. Learned Senior Counsel further vehemently argued that the judgement debtors have already filed an application before the Executing Court as far back as in the year 2023 placing on record the properties of the judgement-debtors and the Executing Court has till date not dealt with the said application. It is contended that without dealing with the said application filed under Order 21 Rule 41(2) CPC, wherein two immovable properties and certain movable properties of the judgement-debtors have been disclosed, the Executing Court could not have proceeded to form an opinion to issue arrest warrant for confining the judgement debtors in civil prison. It is argued that the said application under Order 21 Rule 41(2) CPC was filed in the year 2023 and since then th