Guriqbal Singh vs Prem Chand Thr Lrs And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 14646 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Guriqbal Singh vs Prem Chand Thr Lrs And Others on 14 August, 2024

Author: Vikas Bahl

Bench: Vikas Bahl

                                        Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105227




CR-4600-2024                     -1-

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                         CHANDIGARH
(123)
                                           CR-4600-2024
                                           Date of decision: - 14.08.2024
Guriqbal Singh
                                                                   ....Petitioner

                                   Versus


Prem Chand through LRs and others
                                                                .....Respondents


CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL


Present:-     Mr. Vikas Kumar Gupta, Advocate,
              for the petitioner.

                          ****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 18.07.2024

(Annexure P-11) passed in Execution No.03/2018 whereby warrant of

arrest have been issued against the petitioner.

2. The saying that problems of a litigant start after he has

obtained a decree in his favour is clearly exemplified by the facts and

circumstances of the present case. It is not in dispute that on 13.11.2017,

the suit of respondent No.1 for specific performance was decreed in the

alternate and the petitioner, who was judgment debtor No.1, was directed

to make the payment of Rs.3,09,000/- + interest @ 9% per annum from

25.05.2011 in addition to other expenses. Although, the said judgment

and decree has not been produced on record, but the said fact has been

1 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105227

admitted before this Court and is also prima facie apparent from a perusal

of the execution application dated 09.01.2018 filed by respondent No.1.

In the execution proceedings, an amount of Rs.4,99,900/- was sought to

be recovered which consisted of the original amount of Rs.3,09,000/-

along with 9% interest per annum, costs of the suit etc. as on 09.01.2018.

All the zimni orders in the said execution proceedings have not been

annexed along with the present petition but a perusal of the order dated

10.11.2021 (Annexure P-2) would show that respondent No.1 had filed an

application under Order 21 Rule 37 CPC for arrest and detention in civil

prison of the judgment debtors. A perusal of the order would further

show that the present petitioner had not paid any amount till 10.11.2021

and the properties for which the warrants of attachment were issued, were

objected by the petitioner and his family members, as had been reported

by the Bailiff. The learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Rajpura, had

observed that the list of movable properties of the judgment debtor was

given on affidavit and although, the warrants of attachment issued qua

them were unexecuted with the report that the wife of judgment debtor

No.1 had objected to the same and in the said circumstances, the police

help could have been sought. It was further observed that although both

the modes for execution of decree are available to the decree holder but in

the first instance, warrants of attachment of the articles mentioned in the

list furnished by the decree holder should be issued and on failure of its

execution, a more coercive method would be adopted to recover the

decreed amount. The relevant portion of the said order dated 10.11.2021

2 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105227

is reproduced herein below: -

"4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file and this court is of the considered opinion that present application deserves to be dismissed for the reasons hereinafter mention: Order 21 Rule 30 of Code of Civil Procedure provide that decree for payment of money may be executed by the detention in Civil prison of JD or by the attachment and sale of property or both.

xxx xxx xxx In the considered opinion of the court, no doubt, both modes for execution of decree are available to decree holder, but, first, let warrants of attachment of the articles mentioned in the list furnished by the decree holder be issued and on failure of its execution, the more coercive method shall be addopted to recover the decreed amount.

6. With these observations, the instant application is disposed of.

Pronounced in Open Court on 10.11.2021"

3. The said order has been accepted by the petitioner as no

challenge has been made to the same. Although, all the subsequent zimni

orders have also not been annexed in its entirety but a perusal of the order

dated 07.11.2023 (Annexure P-3) would show that third party objections

were filed by objector Binay Pal Singh, who is the son of the present

petitioner, to further prolong the execution and to deprive the respondent

No.1/decree holder of the fruits of the decree. From a perusal of the said

order, it is apparent that the attachment of the moveable and immovable

property, including articles, was objected to by the son of respondent

No.1 by stating that the articles had been gifted to the objector by the

parents of his wife on their marriage. Even with respect to the house in

question in which the present petitioner was residing it was stated that the

3 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105227

same was registered in the name of the son and his wife and it was

observed that the same could not be attached. However, for the purpose of

execution of the decree, a conditional warrant of arrest of judgment

debtor No.1 was issued. The relevant portion of the said order dated

07.11.2023 (Annexure P-3) is reproduced as under: -

" As such, in order to execute the Decree passed against JD No.1, let conditional warrant of arrest of JD No.1 be issued at Plot bearing Khasra No. 185/ 189, situated at Badala Naya Shahar, H. No. 188, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar.

With these observations, the third party objections are allowed partly and disposed off accordingly.

Date of Order : 07.11.2023"

4. The said order has also not been challenged by the petitioner.

A perusal of zimni order dated 13.03.2024 would show that the petitioner

was arrested by the police and was produced in the Court but an

application was filed by the petitioner for granting time and prayed that

he be not sent to civil imprisonment. A statement was made before the

Court that he admitted his liability and further undertook to pay the

outstanding amount and thus, for the purpose of recording of statement,

the matter was adjourned to 14.03.2024. On 14.03.2024 (Annexure P-5),

the petitioner appeared and again sought time and the matter was

adjourned to 28.03.2024. On 28.03.2024 (Annexure P-6), the case was

again adjourned to 09.04.2024 at the request of the petitioner. On

09.04.2024 (Annexure P-7), the petitioner appeared and suffered a

statement that he would make the payment to the decree holder by

15.05.2024 and the matter was again adjourned to 09.05.2024. The order

4 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105227

dated 09.04.2024 is reproduced herein below: -

"Present: Ms. Sitara Devi proxy for Sh. Satnam Singh Advocate counsel for DH.

Sh. Rohitansh Kumar proxy for Sh. Kulvinder Singh Bhatti Advocate counsel for JD no. 1. JD no. 2 exparte vide order dated 07.11.2023. JD no. 3 exparte vide order dated 31.08.2021.

JD Guriqbal Singh appeared and suffered statement that he will make the payment to DH in the next month dated 15.05.2024.

In view of the aforesaid statement, case is adjourned to 09.05.2024 for making payment as well as further proceedings.

Date of order: 09.04.2024"

5. On 09.05.2024, the matter was adjourned to 16.05.2024 and

the petitioner was granted time till 15.05.2024 to pay the decreetal

amount specifically providing that if the petitioner fails to make the

payment, then, fresh conditional warrants of arrest shall be issued against

the judgment debtor. The relevant portion of the order dated 09.05.2024 is

reproduced as under: -

"Considering the statement suffered on the last date of hearing he is granted time for 15.05.2024 to pay the decreetal amount failing which fresh conditional warrants of arrest shall be issued against the JD Guriqbal Singh. Now, the case is adjourned to 16.05.2024 for making payment.

Date of order: 09.05.2024."

6. On 16.05.2024, again at the request of the petitioner, one

final opportunity was given to the judgment debtor to make the payment

and it was observed that in case of non-compliance, the Court would

proceed further in accordance with law. Another adjournment was sought

5 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105227

on 01.07.2024 and the matter was adjourned to 18.07.2024 without any

payment having been made. It would be relevant to note that none of the

zimni orders, the details of which has been given above, have been

challenged, at any stage or even in the present revision petition. On

18.07.2024, neither the petitioner appeared nor made the payment in spite

of the undertaking given by him and the Court had observed that the

judgment debtor was purposely delaying the matter and left with no other

option, the Court issued warrants of arrest of judgment debtor for

09.08.2024

7. This Court during the course of the hearing had put it to the

counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner is now ready to

deposit the decreetal amount, which was decreed way back in the year

2017. However, the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner is not ready to deposit the said amount. In the said

circumstances, the impugned order dated 18.07.2024 is absolutely in

accordance with law and there is no reason for this Court to interfere with

the said order in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India. It is the duty of the Court to see that the judgment

and decree of the Courts are implemented. It is apparent from the facts of

the case that the petitioner has played hide and seek with the Court and

has even violated his undertaking calling for stringent action against the

petitioner.

8. Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances, this

Court is of the opinion that the order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the

6 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105227

learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Rajpura, is legal and does not call for

any interference and the present civil revision petition being meritless,

deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

                                                      ( VIKAS BAHL )
August 14, 2024                                            JUDGE
naresh.k

            Whether reasoned/speaking?         Yes
            Whether reportable?                Yes




                                      7 of 7