Civil Revision No.2088 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2088 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.09.2011 Banwari Lal .....Petitioner Versus Hari Ram ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present:- Mr. Yashwinder Paul Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.A. Sheoran, Advocate for the respondent. ---- A.N. Jindal J. (Oral) CM No. 23659-CII of 2011 This is an application for bringing on record the legal representatives of Hari Ram-deceased. Allowed as prayed for. Legal representatives of Hari Ram(deceased) are brought on record. Registry is directed to make necessary correction in the memo of parties. Civil Revision No.2088 of 2010 The present revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 CPC is for setting aside orders dated 19.08.2009 (Annexure P-3) and dated 03.10.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Loharu, Distt. Bhiwani, whereby the execution filed by the petitioner has been ordered to be dismissed being fully Civil Revision No.2088 of 2010 (O&M) -2- satisfied on account of civil imprisonment of Hari Ram (since deceased) on account of non-payment of the decretal amount. Heard, since the decree was passed against Hari Ram who is no more alive, therefore, no process could be issued against him for his arrest. However, if he would have been alive, even then, he having already undergone civil imprisonment, no warrants could be issued for his re-arrest. The trial court appears to have taken wrong view of the matter that once the judgment-debtor had undergone civil imprisonment then the decree would stand satisfied under Section 58 (2) CPC. For reference, Section 58(2) CPC is reproduced as under:- “A judgment-debtor released from detention under this section, shall not merely by reason of his release, be discharged from1q 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.” From the bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is apparent that even after the civil prisonment, as ordered by the Court, by the executing Court of a judgment debtor, debt does not stand discharged. However, the same could be recovered from assets which are later on detected or achieved by the judgment debtor at a later stage. It is also well settled that on the death of the judgment debtor, such decree could be executed against estate of the deceased inherited by his heirs/legal representatives. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the order passed Civil Revision No.2088 of 2010 (O&M) -3- by the executing Court dated 19.08.2009 and 03.10.2009 appear to be highly perverse. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 19.08.2009 and 03.10.2009 are set aside and the executing court is directed to proceed in accordance with law. (A.N. JINDAL) JUDGE 30.09.2011 sonika