IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 09.10.2025 Kashmiri Lal …Petitioner V/s Amandeep Nagpal and another …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Saurabh Singla, Advocate, for the respondents.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

CM-5723-CII-2025 Prayer in the present application preferred under Section 151 CPC is for placing on record the attested affidavit dated 11.03.2025 of the petitioner.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.

Attested affidavit of the petitioner dated 11.03.2025 is taken on record.

The Registry is directed to place the same at an appropriate place on the case file.

CR-5083-2022 (O&M)

The present revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails order dated 03.10.2022 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sri Muktsar Sahib, vide which conditional warrants of arrest were ordered to be issued against the petitioner.

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that a suit for recovery of Rs.1,59,000/- filed by the respondents against the present petitioner was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 28.11.2019 (Annexure P-1). The respondents-plaintiffs were held entitled to recover a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the amount becoming due i.e. 30.09.2017 till the decision of the suit and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the decision of the suit till its actual realization.

3. Execution proceedings were filed. Initially, the pension of the petitioner was attached but vide order dated 13.10.2020, the same was released. Thereafter, the house of the petitioner was attached but the same was also released vide order dated 04.03.2022. Under the circumstances, an application under Order 21 Rules 37 and 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the “CPC”) (Annexure P-2) was filed by the decree-holder for the issuance of warrants of arrest for detention of the petitioner in civil prison. The said application was opposed by way of a reply (Annexure P-3). A stand was taken that the judgment debtor was 77 years old and was a retired Government employee getting a pension of Rs.33,000/- per month, which had been revised to Rs.45,000/- per month. It was averred that the judgment debtor and his wife have one son namely Pawan Kumar, who also has his wife and two sons to take care of. It was also averred that the judgment debtor had taken a house loan from the State Bank of India, Sri Muktsar Sahib, for which Rs.11,000/- per month was being paid as installment and the remaining pension was being used on medical expenses of the judgment debtor and his wife. It was also averred that even the family of his unemployed son had to be maintained by him as a result of which, he was unable to pay the decretal amount. It was averred that still the judgment debtor was ready to pay Rs.7,000/- per month to the decree holder from his pension account. By way of the impugned order, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner- judgment debtor to show cause as to why warrants of arrest be not issued against him.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Sh. Ashok Kumar Khunger, learned counsel representing the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable. He submits that in terms of the provisions of Section 51 CPC, no such detention could have been ordered to execute a money decree. He further submits that the executing Court did not take note of the fact that the petitioner was willing to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month from his pension. He further submits that even today, the petitioner is willing and ready to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- from his pension. However, on a query put by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that till date no amount has been paid.

6. Per contra, learned counsel representing the responden