IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 2874 of 2011 Date of decision: 3.5.2011 Jagsir Singh … Petitioner versus Anil Kumar … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. S.K.Aneja, Advocate, for the petitioner ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioner is the judgment-debtor in the money-decree dated 13.3.1999. He is aggrieved with order dated 5.3.2010 by virtue of which conditional warrants of arrest have been issued against him for 22.5.2010. The facts are that there is money decree dated 13.3.1999 in which the present petitioner is the judgment-debtor. He has not satisfied the decree till now. Decree-holder filed an application under Order 21, rule 37, Code of Civil Procedure, stating that there is no property of the judgment-debtor which can be attached as he intentionally and deliberately removed the property from his house so that warrants of attachment could not be effected and as such, necessary warrants of arrest and detention in prison be issued against the judgment-debtor. Proclamation by way of Munadi issued against the judgment-debtor was received back duly executed. The judgment-debtor did not put in appearance and was proceeded against ex-parte and vide the impugned order, conditional warrants of arrest were issued against him for 22.5.2010. Hence, the present revision. From the provisions mentioned in Order 21 rule 37, Code of Civil Procedure, it is clear that before passing an order of arrest of the judgment-debtor, the executing Court is required to issue a notice calling C.R. No. 2874 of 2011 -2- upon the judgment-debtor to show cause as to why he be not committed to civil prison. The aspect of deliberate refusal or negligence is to be necessarily established by the decree-holder to the satisfaction of the executing Court. The impugned order indicates that despite service of Munadi, he did not appear despite several calls. Counsel for the petitioner at this juncture has also been apprised that if the judgment-debtor is ready to comply with the decree, some relief can be granted but counsel has communicated denial of the judgment-debtor. In back-drop of these facts, there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the executing Court issuing conditional warrants of arrest against the judgment-debtor. The revision petition being without any merit is hereby dismissed. May 3, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE