Civil Revision No.3630 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No.3630 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 01.6.2011 Bhushan Kumar ......petitioner Versus Baljit Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.K.Singla , Advocate for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. The plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit for recovery of ` 31,320/- for use and occupation of the godown from 1.3.1997 to 29.2.2000. The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) vide judgment and decree dated 4.12.2001. Vide the impugned order dated 22.4.2011, the Executing Court held that since the petitioner-judgment debtor had failed to comply with the decree, it would be expedient to issue warrants of arrest of the petitioner. Hence, the present petition by the defendant-judgment debtor. Civil Revision No.3630 of 2011 (O&M) 2 After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that in the execution proceedings, the petitioner had failed to appear. Counsel for the petitioner had been directed to ensure the presence of the petitioner but despite the said fact, the petitioner had failed to appear before the Executing Court. Rather an application was moved under Order 21 Rule 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recording the statement of judgment debtor with regard to his property. Learned Executing court rightly held that the said application was not maintainable as under 21 Rule 41 CPC, the decree holder can move an application to the Court that the judgment debtor be orally examined as to whether he has any property or means for satisfying the decree. The decree in favour of the respondent was passed in the year 2001 and the execution application was filed on 22.4.2002 for recovery of the decretal amount. Warrant of attachment, issued qua property of judgment debtor, were received back un-executed. The plaintiff-decree holder withdrew the execution application with permission to file a fresh one and thereafter, the execution application in question was filed by the decree holder on 22.12.2008. The petitioner appeared before the Executing Court on 16.5.2009. The judgment debtor had pleaded that he did not have any means to pay the decretal amount. Since the petitioner has failed to comply with the decree, which was passed way back in the year 2001, learned Executing Court rightly held that the procedure qua arrest Civil Revision No.3630 of 2011 (O&M) 3 and detention of the judgment debtor in civil prison was liable to be initiated on an application moved by the decree holder under Order 21 Rule 37 CPC. No ground for interference by this Court is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE June 01, 2011 anita