CR No.7865 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7865 of 2009 Date of decision: 21.7.2010 State Bank of India ......Petitioner(s) Versus M/s K.V.S Enterprises ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Y.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. Vide this order, I shall dispose of two civil revisions i.e. CR Nos.7865 and 7866 of 2009 which have been filed by the decree-holder petitioner challenging two separate orders in the same execution proceedings. Suit for recovery of Rs.2,58,056.13P was decreed on 23.6.1982 with costs and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization in favour of the petitioner-Bank and against the respondent by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Guntur (A.P). An execution application No.325 of 1996 was filed by the decree-holder/petitioner in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Guntur (A.P.) and the same was transferred to the Court of District Judge, Rohtak for its execution who further entrusted the same to the Senior Sub Judge, Rohtak for its execution. The petitioner-Bank filed two applications i.e. one under Order 21 Rule 41 CPC for issuance of a direction to the judgment- debtor/respondent to file an affidavit in the Court stating the particulars of his movable and immovable assets and the other for issuing notice to the CR No.7865 of 2009 2 judgment-debtor as to why the decretal amount be not recovered from him by his arrest and detention in the civil prison. The aforesaid applications were contested by the respondent. The Executing Court vide order dated 10.6.2009 rejected both the applications. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. It is not in dispute that in the execution petition, property of the judgment-debtor has already been attached and ordered to be auctioned. Thus, the details of the property of the judgment-debtor were available on the record of the execution proceedings on the basis of which the order for auction after attachment was passed by the Executing Court. It has been further noticed by the Executing Court that in the application filed under Order 21 Rule 41 CPC, the decree-holder has not explained as to how and under what circumstances, necessity had arisen to seek such relief and the aforesaid application was not supported by any affidavit. Further, there is no averment that the respondent was disposing of any other property in order to defeat the purpose of the execution of the decree in favour of the petitioner-Bank. The aforesaid circumstances, as mentioned in the impugned order, could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Thus, I find no merit in the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner for allowing the application under Order 21 Rule 41 CPC. No doubt, a decree can be executed by adopting any of the modes as prescribed under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code including imprisonment of the judgment-debtor in civil prison. However, in the present case, the decree-holder/Bank is already executing the decree by adopting the mode of attachment and sale of the property of the judgment-debtor. It is not the case of the petitioner/decree-holder that the decree in question cannot be fully satisfied by sale of attachment of the CR No.7865 of 2009 3 property of the judgment-debtor neither any such facts have been placed on record in this regard. Finding no merit in both the petitions, the same are dismissed. July 21, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE