Civil Revision No. 6246 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6246 of 2011 Date of decision. 19.10.2011 Jagdish Lal .... Petitioner Versus Haryana State Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Pritam Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is a revision petition brought by Jagdish Lal, the judgment debtor under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 16.08.2011 (Annexure P-3) vide which learned Executing Court ordered him to be sent to civil imprisonment. In the matter of failure of the petitioner to lift his bags of potatoes, deposited with the respondent for cold storage and non payment of the storage charges, an Arbitrator was appointed, who had made an award on 05.09.2006 in a sum of Rs.57,641/- with interest at the rate of 15% per annum. The petitioner was not aware of the award. He was under the belief that his goods were lying in the cold storage. Civil Revision No. 6246 of 2011 --2-- He also could not come to know of the public notice asking the parties to lift their potatoes by 31.10.2000. In the Executing Court, an application under Order 21 Rule 37 CPC has been filed by the respondent praying for detention of the petitioner in civil prison. The Executing Court vide order dated 16.08.2011 found the case fit for sending the judgment debtor to civil imprisonment because it was satisfied that the judgment debtor had got sufficient means to pay the decretal amount and was evading the payment thereof. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the judgment debtor has brought this revision petition. I have heard Shri Pritam Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the judgment debtor has no means to pay, he could not be sent to jail. According to him, the Executing Court would have been justified in passing the order of arrest if the judgment debtor had means to pay but refused to pay the same. In this regard, he has cited before me a decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in T.J.Abraham v. Maharashtra Apex Corporation Ltd. 2011(4) RCR (Civil) 248. It is true that before passing an order of arrest and detention in civil imprisonment in execution of a money decree, the Executing Court has to satisfy itself that despite having means to pay the decretal amount, the judgment debtor is refusing to do so. However, Civil Revision No. 6246 of 2011 --3-- the onus to prove that the judgment debtor has no means to pay the decretal amount, is on the judgment debtor. In the case in hand, it is clearly mentioned by learned Executing Court vide the impugned order that the judgment debtor has sought adjournments on a couple of occasions for making the payment and he did not appear on the next date to honour his commitment. The judgment debtor is a person, who had deposited 968 bags of potatoes with the respondent for cold storage. A person having the means to buy or grow this much of potatoes and having the capacity to store the same for future sale cannot be said to be a person having no means to pay the decretal money. It is not his case that after the deposit of the bags of potatoes, his financial condition has worsened. Learned Executing Court has heard the judgment debtor and had been satisfied on the fact that despite having means, he was refusing to pay the decretal amount. Accordingly, I find no infirmity in the impugned order, which might justify interference with the same in the revision petition. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 19.10.2011 dinesh