IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2084 of 2009 Date of decision : February 04, 2010 M/s Jagdish Foam Sales ....Petitioner versus M/s S.G.K.Enterprises ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. GS Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Vikramjit Singh, Advocate, for the respondent L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) This is revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) preferred by judgment debtor assailing order dated 8.4.2009 passed by the executing court i.e. learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh thereby allowing application of respondent-decree holder filed under section 55 read with Order 21 Rule 37 CPC and ordering issuance of warrant of arrest against judgment debtor-petitioner and detention of the JD in civil prison. Suit filed by respondent against the petitioner was decreed by trial court vide judgment and decree dated 24.12.2007 for recovery of Rs 1,61,394/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of suit till recovery. In execution petition filed by DH for execution of the said Civil Revision No. 2084 of 2009 -2- decree, DH moved application for arrest and detention of JD in civil prison. The executing court by impugned order allowed the said application because JD in spite of having means to satisfy the decree failed to pay the decretal amount. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that first appeal preferred by the petitioner against judgment and decree dated 24.12.2007 passed by the trial court has been partly allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment and decree dated 12.1.2010 whereby trial court decree has been affirmed for amount of Rs 30798/- only with interest thereon whereas judgment and decree of the trial court regarding remaining decretal amount has been set aside by the lower appellate court. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that the petitioner has already deposited Rs 50,000/- in the executing court pursuant to interim order of this Court. Learned counsel for the respondent does not controvert the aforesaid factual position. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition has to be allowed because modified decree as passed by the lower appellate court can be satisfied out of amount of Rs 50,000/- already deposited by the judgment debtor-petitioner in the executing court. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 8.4.2009 passed by the executing court is set aside, Civil Revision No. 2084 of 2009 -3- however, without prejudice to right of the respondent to agitate by way of filing second appeal against judgment and decree of the lower appellate court. ( L.N. Mittal ) February 04, 2010 Judge 'tiwana'