Civil Revision No. 7590 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7590 of 2011 Date of decision. 08.12.2011 Shamsher Singh and another .... Petitioners Versus State Bank of India ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Rajesh Narang, Advocate for the petitioners. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is a revision petition brought by the judgment debtors, who are facing execution application brought by the respondent-State Bank of India in respect of the judgment and decree dated 30.05.2000 passed in a suit for recovery of Rs.2,36,116/-. Learned Executing Court has been issuing conditional warrant of arrest of the judgment debtors vide order dated 13.02.2010 and the subsequent orders passed in the execution application, which are collectively challenged by way of this revision petition. Civil Revision No. 7590 of 2011 --2-- The judgment and decree passed in favour of State Bank of India against the petitioners are dated 30.05.2000 and not even a single penny has been paid by the judgment debtors towards the decretal amount. I have heard Mr. Rajesh Narang, learned counsel for the revision-petitioners and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Executing Court has issued warrant of arrest without complying with the provisions of Order 21 Rules 37 and 40 CPC. According to him, under Rule 37 CPC, the executing court has to direct the judgment debtors to show cause against their detention in prison. According to him, nothing such has been done in this case. He has moreover stated that only judgment debtor no.1 has been given notice and no notice has been given to judgment debtor no.2. He has further submitted that if a person appears before the court or is produced before it in obedience to notice or after arrest, he has to be heard and the evidence has to be taken by giving an opportunity to the judgment debtor to show cause why he should not be committed to the civil prison. He has submitted that these provisions have been violated and, therefore, the impugned orders are bad. A close perusal of the impugned orders would clearly show that the conditional warrant of arrest is issued in compliance with the provisions of Order 21 Rule 37 CPC. In obedience to the said notice, Civil Revision No. 7590 of 2011 --3-- judgment debtor no.1 came present through counsel on 30.07.2010. Time was given to him to file objection, if any on 03.09.2010 but on the said date, objections were not filed and adjournment was again requested. Objections were not filed on 26.10.2010 also and thereafter none appeared for him. Notice was given to the other judgment debtor also. Lastly also the order is for issuance of conditional warrant of arrest in compliance with the provisions of Order 21 Rule 37 and the Executing Court has not gone beyond the aforesaid provisions. The judgment debtors who are avoiding payment of a single penny towards the decretal amount against the judgment and decree passed against them on 30.05.2000 are not being seriously taken by the Executing Court. They are not appearing even after service as the case of judgment debtor no.1. No objections were filed by judgment debtor no.1. The decree is there against them and the same remains unsatisfied without any reason and the judgment debtors are even avoiding to come present before the Executing Court and putting forth their case, if any against payment of the decretal amount. For these reasons, I do not find learned Executing Court, Fazilka to have committed any illegality in making the impugned orders. The revision petition, therefore, has no merit and the same is dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 08.12.2011 dinesh