IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (117)

Date of Decision:-04.11.2025 VINOD KUMAR … Petitioner Versus SUKHCHAIN LAL ... Respondent -.-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Arjun Veer Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. This civil revision petition has been filed assailing the orders dated 08.10.2025, 09.10.2025, 18.10.2025, 28.10.2025 passed by learned Executing Court, vide which, the conditional warrants of arrest has been issued against the petitioner for recovery of remaining amount of the money decree. It is a case of the petitioner that money decree of recovery of Rs.9,00,000/- along with interest was passed against the petitioner and petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs.4.5 lacs as per the orders of the First Appellate Court and for recovery of remaining amount, the execution petition was filed and during that execution petition, conditional warrants of arrest of the petitioenr has been issued in violation of the provisions of Order XXI Rule 37 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and even after observing that petitioner is not having money with him to pay the decreetal amount, petitioner is being put to jail for his poverty in violation of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Jolly George Varghese and another versus The Bank of Cochin, 1980 (2) SCC 360.

2. I have gone through the impugned orders carefully.

3. Perusal of the orders clearly show that the petitioner was directed to disclose his assets in view of the provisions of Order XXI Rule 41 of CPC and he has placed on record his affidavit with regard to his assets and liabilities and as per that affidavit his monthly income is Rs.10,000/- and he is not owning any immovable property and he is having one joint bank account with his daughter and the available balance is only Rs.675.28/- as on 06.10.2025 and there is one LIC Policy in the name of deponent and the learned Executing Court took cognizance of the same and has passed order dated 08.10.2025 for issuance of conditional warrants of arrest by observed as under:-

“Today, case was fixed for furnishing of affidavit by the JD stating the particulars of the assets owned by him. JD Vinod Kumar came present in person and tendered his affidavit of assets and liability Ex. JW wherein he stated his monthly income is Rs.10,000/- from a private job and he do not own any house and at present he is living in the house of owned by his wife. He has further stated that he has joint bank account with his daughter in Indian Oversea Bank, Bhadour House, Ludhiana, wherein the available balance is Rs.695/- as on 06.10.2025. In view of the said affidavit of the JD this Court is left with no other alternative except to proceed against the person of JD. However, JD requested for one day adjournment for making the payment to the DH. Heard. Request allowed. Let the said payment be made on 09.10.2025.

4. Perusal of this order clearly shows that when it was found that petitioner JD is not having sufficient property to pay the decreetal amount, his conditional warrants of arrest has been issued which is clearly violatived of the law laid won by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jolly George Varghese (supra). Para 11 of the judgment is relevant for the decision of the present petition which is reproduced as under:-

“The words which hurt are “or has had since the date of the decree, the means to pay the amount of the decree.” This implies, superficially read, that if at any time after the passing of an old decree the judgment-debtor had come by some resources and had not discharged the decree, he could be detained in prison even though at that later point of time he was found to be penniless. This is not a sound position apart from being inhuman going by the standards of Article 11 (of the Covenant) and Article 21 (of the Constitution). The simple default to discharge is not enough. There must be some element of bad faith beyond mere indifference to pay, some deliberate