Vijay Singh vs Bhogdi Bai
2023 Latest Caselaw 11376 MP

                                                       1
                           IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT INDORE
                                                    BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
                                             ON THE 21 st OF JULY, 2023
                                           MISC. PETITION No. 974 of 2021

                          BETWEEN:-
                          VIJAY SINGH S/O DARIYAV SINGH RAJPUT, AGED
                          ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
                          GRAM KUKDOL, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT GRAM
                          BANHER, TESHI GOGANV, DISTRICT KHARGONE
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                             .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI AKSHAT PAHADIA - ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER)

                          AND
                          1.    BHOGDI BAI W/O CHAIN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 40
                                YE A R S , OCCUPATION: NOT KNOWN GRAM
                                DABLA, TEHSIL BHAGWANPURA (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          2.    PANNALAL S/O CHAINSINGH, AGED ABOUT 23
                                YE A R S , OCCUPATION: NOT KNOWN GRAM
                                DABLA TEHSIL BHAGWANPUR DIST KHARGONE
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    ABDUL S/O CHAINSINGH, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
                                OCCUPATION: NOT KNOWN GRAM DABLA
                                TEHSIL   BHAGWANPUR     DIST   KHARGONE
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    KAVITA D/O CHAINSINGH, AGED ABOUT 19
                                YE A R S , OCCUPATION: NOT KNOWN GRAM
                                DABLA, TEHSIL BHAGWANPURA (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          5.    S U N I L MINOR THR NATURAL GUARDIAN
                                MOTHER BHOGDIBAI W/O CHAINSINGH, AGED
                                ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NOT KNOWN
                                GRAM DABLA TEHSIL BHAGWANPUR DIST
                                KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          6.    SANGEETA MINOR THR NATURAL GUARDIAN
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 24-Jul-23
3:19:07 PM
                                                        2
                                  MOTHER BHOGDIBAI W/O CHAINSINGH, AGED
                                  ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NOT KNOWN
                                  GRAM DABLA TEHSIL BHAGWANPUR DIST
                                  KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI LOKESH MEHTA - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.1)

                                  T h is petition coming on for order this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                          following:
                                                               ORDER

By this petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution to India the petitioner/judgment-debtor has challenged the order dated 25.02.201 passed in execution MJC No. 01/2016 by the Additional Member Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kharogone, whereby in execution of the award

passed against him in the sum of Rs. 99,60,000/- along with interest by the Claims Tribunal, he has been directed to be kept in detention for a period of 12 days.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in execution of the award earlier the petitioner was detained in the civil prison for a total period of three months at various intervals. Thus in view of provisions of Section 58(2) of the CPC he cannot now be re-arrested under the award in its execution, hence the impugned order passed by the executing Court directing him to be detained for a period of 12 days is without jurisdiction.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that the award which has been passed against the petitioner has not been satisfied by him as yet, hence the executing Court had the jurisdiction to direct him to be detained in civil prison and, therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. However he did not dispute the fact that prior to passing of the impugned order the petitioner has undergone detention in civil prison for a total period of three Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI PRASHANT Signing time: 24-Jul-23 3:19:07 PM

months.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the petition deserves to be allowed.

5. Section 58 of the CPC is as under :-

"(1) Every person detained in the civil prison in execution of a decree shall be so detained,-

(a) where the decree is for the payment of a sum of money exceeding 12 [five thousand rupees], for a period not exceeding three months, and] 3[(b) where the decree is for the payment of a sum of money exceeding two thousand rupees, but not exceeding five thousand rupees, for a period not exceeding six weeks :] Provided that he shall be released from such detention before the expiration of the 4[said period of detention]-

(i) on the amount mentioned in the warrant for his detention being paid to the officer in charge of the civil prison, or

(ii) on the decree against him being otherwise fully satisfied, or

(iii) on the request of the person on whose application he has been so detained, or

(iv) on the omission by the person, on whose application he

has been so detained, to pay subsistence allowance :

Provided, also, that he shall not be released from such detention under clause (ii) or clause (iii), without the Order of the Court.

5[(1A) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that no Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI PRASHANT Signing time: 24-Jul-23 3:19:07 PM

Order for detention of the judgment-debtor in civil prison in execution of a decree for the payment of money shall be made, where the total amount of the decree does not exceed 6[two thousand rupees.]] (2) A judgment-debtor released from detention under this section shall not merely by reason of his release be discharged from his debt, but he shall not be liable to be re-arrested under the decree in execution of which he was detained in the civil prison."

6. A bare perusal of Sub-section (2) of Section 58 reveals that a judgment-debtor released from detention is not liable to be re-arrested under the decree in its execution in which he was detained in the civil prison, meaning thereby, that if in execution of the decree the judgment-debtor has already been arrested in exercise of powers under Section 58 (1) of the CPC and has been detained in civil prison for a total period of three months, then he is not liable to be rearrested under the very same decree in its execution.

7. In the present case, the petitioner has already undergone detention in civil prison for a period of three months in execution of the award. Thus in view of mandatory condition as stipulated in sub-section (2) he was not liable to be re-arrested in execution of the award. In directing so, the executing Court has acted beyond jurisdiction.

8. As a result, the impugned order passed by the executing Court cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The respondents shall however be at liberty to take recourse to such legal remedies as may be available to them for execution of the award.

Petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off. Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI PRASHANT Signing time: 24-Jul-23 3:19:07 PM

Certified copy as per rules.

(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE rashmi

Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI PRASHANT Signing time: 24-Jul-23 3:19:07 PM