C.R. No. 945 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 945 of 2009 Date of Decision: August 10, 2009 Ashok Kumar …..Petitioner Vs. Prem Raj …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The petitioner is a judgment debtor on account of a decree dated May 15, 2006 passed against him for a sum of Rs.49600/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum till realization. In an application filed for execution under Order 21 Rule 11 CPC seeking to recover the amount by attachment and sale of the moveable property of judgment debtor, an order had been passed in absence of judgment debtor on February 6, 2009, the date when he opted not to appear before the Executing Court presuming C.R. No. 945 of 2009 [2] that he has nothing to say to send him to civil imprisonment as he had been evading the payment of decree under execution. Aggrieved by the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner, he has approached this Court by filing a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that as per the provisions of Section 51 CPC the petitioner could not have been arrested unless and until the statutory provisions regarding detention in prison of a judgment debtor are fulfilled. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case in context to the provisions of Section 51 CPC relied upon by counsel for the petitioner. As per the provisions of Section 51 CPC, the decree for payment of money can be executed by detention of the judgment debtor only after giving him an opportunity to show cause as to why he should not be committed to prison. The Court has to record a satisfaction before passing an order of committing a judgment debtor to prison to the effect that judgment debtor with the object of obstructing or delaying the execution of the decree, is likely to abscond or leave the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, or that after the institution of the suit in which the decree was passed, dishonestly transferred, concealed, or removed any part of his property, or committed any other act of bad faith in relation to his property or has had, since the date of the decree, the means to pay the amount of the decree or some substantial part thereof and refuses or neglects or has refused or neglected to pay the same. A perusal of the impugned order C.R. No. 945 of 2009 [3] reflects that when the application under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC was fixed before the Executing Court, he opted to absent himself to evade and delay the execution proceedings. There appears to be prima facie violation of provision of Section 51 CPC as opportunity has not been given to the judgment debtor to show cause as to why he should not be committed to prison. The impugned order is set aside for violation of provisions of Section 51 CPC. However, a direction is issued that the petitioner will put in appearance before the Executing Court on or before September 12, 2009 on which date he will pay part of the decretal amount and would show reasons as to why he should not be committed to prison. The Executing Court will record reasons and satisfaction before passing an order of committing him to prison. This petition is allowed with the abovesaid direction. It is made clear that since the judgment debtor petitioner is being represented through a counsel, this order will be deemed to be a notice to him of the date fixed before the Executing Court. However, it is made clear that it will be open to the Executing Court to adjourn the case for giving him a fair opportunity to show cause. This order will also not debar the Executing Court to take other steps in accordance with law or for execution of the money decree against the petitioner. August 10, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE