Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdev Singh vs Tarsem Singh on 9 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103401
CR-4465-2023 -1- 2023:PHHC:103401
127
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-4465-2023
Date of Decision:- 09.08.2023
SUKHDEV SINGH ....Petitioner
Vs.
TARSEM SINGH
...Respondent
CORAM:-HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI
Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.
*****
AMARJOT BHATTI, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner Sukhdev Singh has filed the instant revision
petition against the impugned order dated 05.07.2023, Annexure P-1,
passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Faridkot in execution
application No.285 of 2014 titled Tarsem Singh Vs. Sukhdev Singh vide
which application filed by the respondent under Order 21 Rule 37 CPC has
been allowed and the conditional warrants of arrest of the petitioner/JD
Sukhdev Singh has been issued.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the aforesaid
order is illegal and against the law and facts of the case. The
respondent/plaintiff had filed suit for recovery on the basis of pronote and
receipt dated 24.12.2009 against the present petitioner/defendant which
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103401
CR-4465-2023 -2- 2023:PHHC:103401
was decreed in his favour vide judgment and decree dated 11.09.2014 vide
which the plaintiff was held to be entitled for the recovery of Rs.98,000/-
along with interest as detailed therein. Copy of judgment and decree dated
11.09.2014 is Annexure P-2. The present petitioner, feeling aggrieved of
this judgment and decree, filed an appeal which was also finally dismissed
by Additional District Judge, Faridkot vide judgment and decree dated
05.11.2015. In the meantime, on 27.10.2014 the decree holder filed an
execution application for the execution of decree dated 11.09.2014 and the
warrants of attachment of his property were issued. The warrants of
attachment were duly effected and one application under Order 21 Rule 66
CPC was filed. The petitioner has filed objections against the said
attachment of property on 21.11.2017. The reply to the objections was
filed on 21.12.2017 and later-on vide order dated 15.02.2018 the property
was ordered to be released from attachment as he was not owner of the
same. In-fact the said property was owned by his father Tarlochan Singh.
Thereafter the decree holder/respondent filed an application dated
30.07.2018 under Order 21 Rule 37 of CPC which is Annexure P-3. The
present petitioner filed reply dated 30.10.2018 to the said application
which is Annexure P-4. The matter was also referred to Mediation Centre
for amicable settlement on 31.05.2019. The parties settled their dispute for
a sum of Rs.1,65,000/-. On 25.07.2019 his wife paid Rs.25,000/- to the
decree holder and case was adjourned to 31.08.2019 for making payment
of Rs.35,000/- on the next date. On 31.08.2019 the petitioner paid a sum
of Rs.25,000/- to the DH and it was again adjourned for 19.10.2019 to
make the payment of balance amount of Rs.1,15,000/-. The Executing
Court has totally ignored that the DH has already received Rs.50,000/-
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103401
CR-4465-2023 -3- 2023:PHHC:103401
from the present petitioner. He was lodged in Central Jail, Ferozepur. His
production warrants were ordered to be issued for 02.12.2022 and
accordingly he was produced through video conferencing. His wife again
paid Rs.5,000/- to the DH on 20.01.2023. His wife again paid Rs.8,000/- to
the DH on 13.02.2023. Case was again adjourned for remaining payment.
On 28.04.2023 his wife paid Rs.15,000/- to the DH. The order dated
16.06.2023 regarding conditional warrants of arrest is Annexure P-6. He
filed an application for his immediate release from detention as there was
no compliance of Order 21 Rule 41 CPC or Order 21 Rule 40 CPC. The
matter was taken up on 22.06.2023 and the DH has received Rs.50,000/- as
part payment and on the statement of DH, he was released from custody.
The copy of application dated 20.06.2023 and order dated 22.06.2023 are
Annexure P-7 and P-8 respectively. Now again his conditional warrants of
arrest have been issued as per order dated 05.07.2023, which is Annexure
P-1. The learned Executing Court has failed to consider the safeguards
provided under Section 51 of CPC. The impugned order is in violation of
the aforesaid provisions. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order
dated 05.07.2023, Annexure P-1, may kindly be set aside by accepting the
present revision.
3. I have considered the arguments and stand taken by the
learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, the suit filed by Tarsem
Singh against the present petitioner Sukhdev Singh has been decreed to the
tune of Rs.98,000/- along with interest as detailed therein vide judgment
and decree dated 11.09.2014. The copy of judgment and decree dated
11.09.2014 is Annexure P-2. The appeal preferred by him was also
dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot vide judgment
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103401
CR-4465-2023 -4- 2023:PHHC:103401
and decree dated 05.11.2015. The facts narrated in the petition clearly
indicate that decree holder filed an execution application on 27.10.2014
and firstly the lesser coercive method was used by way of attachment of
property. When the notice was issued under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC the
present petitioner appeared and filed objections and ultimately the property
was released from attachment vide order dated 15.02.2018 as it was
standing in the name of his father Tarlochan Singh. Thereafter, the DH was
fully justified in filing application under Order 21 Rule 37 CPC. It is
conceded that the matter was also referred to Mediation Centre for
amicable settlement of their disputes. The matter was settled for a sum of
Rs.1,65,000/-. The contents of petition indicate that some of the payments
were made from time to time. Prior to this, his conditional warrants of
arrest were issued and he was sentenced to civil imprisonment. However,
on the receipt of the part payment of Rs.50,000/- the DH suffered
statement regarding his release. Copy of order dated 22.06.2023 is
Annexure P-8. Even thereafter, when the balance payment was not given
by the present petitioner again the process was initiated by issuing his
conditional warrants of arrest. The judgment and decree pertains to the
year 2014, which the Executing Court is trying its level best to execute the
same. The coercive method is being used under compelled circumstances
as the present petitioner/JD has failed to honour the decree of Court. Even
during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner did not
show any inclination on the part of the petitioner to make payment of
balance amount in favour of the DH.
Therefore, considering the factual position, I do not find any
illegality or irregularity committed by the Executing Court while passing
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103401
CR-4465-2023 -5- 2023:PHHC:103401
the impugned order dated 05.07.2023, Annexure P-1 and the same is,
accordingly, upheld.
The Civil Revision preferred by the petitioner is, accordingly,
declined.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
09.08.2023 (AMARJOT BHATTI)
snd JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No.
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103401
5 of 5
