IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
MANDEEP PANNU, J
Parampreet Singh – Appellant
Versus
Harkamal Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial legal proceedings concerning the execution of a money decree. (Para 1 , 2) |
MANDEEP PANNU J.
1. The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the impugned orders dated 18.03.2025 and 09.09.2025 passed by the learned Executing Court, Ludhiana. Vide order dated 18.03.2025, the Executing Court allowed the applications filed by the decree- holder under Order 21 Rule 37 CPC read with Sections 51 and 55 CPC and under Order 21 Rule 39 CPC, directing the decree-holder to deposit subsistence allowance and issuing conditional warrants of arrest against the judgment-debtor. Subsequently, vide order dated 09.09.2025, the Executing Court dismissed the review petition filed by the judgment-debtor against the earlier order.
2. The brief facts are that a money decree in the sum of ₹2,36,000 was passed ex parte on 19.10.2015 against the present petitioner. The decree-holder filed an execution petition for realization of the decretal amount. During the pendency of the execution, the decree-holder moved two applications: one under Section 51 read with Section 55 and Order 21 Rule 37 CPC seeking arrest and detention
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.