CR No.2560 of 2003 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 17.09.2010 Kali Ram ... Petitioner Versus P.S.B. Finance & Leasing Ltd. and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: None for the parties. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): This revision petition is directed against the order dated 05.05.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pehowa, whereby the application of the Judgment Debtor not to conduct the attachment and sale of his property, has been dismissed. An execution petition came to be filed by the Decree Holder in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pehowa, for execution of a money decree for recovery of Rs.2,20,608/-. During the pendency of this execution petition, an application was moved by the Decree Holder for civil imprisonment of the Judgment Debtor for not satisfying the decree. The Executing Court accepted the application and sent the Judgment Debtor to civil imprisonment for three months. Thereafter, another application was moved by the Decree Holder for the sale of the property and also for participating n the auction proceedings. This application was resisted by the Judgment Debtor on the ground that the Decree Holder having exhausted the remedy of sending the Judgment Debtor to civil imprisonment, is not entitled to seek the execution of the CR No.2560 of 2003 2 decree by any other mode including the sale of the property. It was contended on behalf of the Judgment Debtor that civil imprisonment being the last remedy prescribed for execution of the decree and the Decree Holder having exhausted the said remedy, not entitled to sale of the property of the JD and recovery of the decretal amount. The learned trial Court considering the provisions of Order 21 Rule 72 CPC as also Order 21 Rule 30 CPC, dismissed the application filed by the Judgment Debtor and allowed the application filed by the Decree Holder for recovery of the decretal amount by sale of the property. None has appeared on behalf of the parties. I have gone through the impugned order. Order 21 Rule 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes the mode for execution of a decree. Under this provision, the decree may be executed by the detention in the civil prison of the Judgment Debtor or by the attachment an sale of his property, or by both. Thus, merely because the Judgment Debtor was sent to civil imprisonment, does not satisfy the decree per se. Under the aforesaid provision, both the modes can be adopted for the execution of the decree. In view of the above clear and un-ambiguous provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 17.09.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE