2023:PHHC:120798

CR-8061-2016

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

240

CR-8061-2016

Date of decision : 13.09.2023

Sonia Ahuja

..... Petitioner

Versus

Kirpal Singh and others

..... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI

Present:

Mr. Anand Chibbar, Senior Advocate with

Ms. Ateevraj Sandhu and Mr. Lalit Thakur, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate

for the respondents.

****

AMARJOT BHATTI J. (ORAL)

The petitioner Sonia Ahuja has filed civil revision for setting aside

impugned order dated 09.11.2016 (Annexure P-9) and impugned order dated

03.09.2016 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior

Division), Chandigarh, whereby the said Court has dismissed the application for

recalling the order dated 03.09.2016 wherein the present petitioner has been

sentenced to undergo civil imprisonment for one month and warrants of arrest

have been issued against the petitioner.

2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has

been sentenced to undergo civil imprisonment for one month under the provisions

of Order XXI Rule 41 C.P.C. by totally ignoring the provisions of Section 56

C.P.C., according to which there is a specific prohibition of arrest or detention of a

women in execution of decree for money. As per this provision, “notwithstanding

LALIT SHARMA

2023.09.15 15:35

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2023:PHHC:120798

CR-8061-2016

-2-

anything in this Part, the Court shall not order the arrest or detention in the civil

imprisonment of a woman in execution of a decree for the payment of money.”

The learned trial Court while passing the impugned order dated 09.11.2016 has

relied upon the authorities which are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

It is pointed out that there was no lapse on the part of present petitioner nor the

present petitioner had any intention to disobey the directions of the Court. Infact,

she was never informed by her counsel Sh. G.D. Goyal, Advocate regarding filing

of application under Order XXI Rule 41 C.P.C. nor she was informed that there

was any direction of the Court to appear in the Court under the aforesaid

provisions. Thereafter, the present petitioner had filed an affidavit alongwith

application in compliance with the provisions of Order XXI Rule 41 C.P.C. which

is Annexure P-7 and P-8. In support of his arguments the learned counsel has

relied upon the authority of Kerala High Court W.A. No.379 of 2003 decided on

05.06.2003 in case titled as Cyril Britto Vs. Union of India and Others upholding

the protection provided to women from arrest and detention in execution of a

money decree under 5.56 of CPC. Other authorities on this point are also relied

upon. Without considering the aforesaid factual position, the learned Executing

Court passed the impugned order dated 03.09.2016, which is Annexure P-2 and

also dismissed the application to recall the aforesaid order by passing impugned

order dated 09.11.2016, which is Annexure P-9. It is prayed that the aforesaid

impugned orders may kindly be set aside by accepting the present revision.

3.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that

in the case in hand the Executing Court had initiated the proceedings under XXI

Rule 41 C.P.C., therefore, the provisions of Section 56 C.P.C. does not create any

bar to the Executing Court for proceeding further in the execution proceedings.

LALIT SHARMA

2023.09.15 15:35

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2023:PHHC:120798

CR-8061-2016

-3-

The facts of the case and the provisions under Order XXI Rule 41 C.P.C. were

rightly considered by the Executing Court. It was the petitioner/judgment-debtor

who disobeyed the orders of the Court to avoid the execution of money decree in

favour of the respondents. Therefore, the Executing Court passed order dated

03.09.2016 vide which she was sentenced to undergo civil imprisonment fo