IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO 198 of 2010. Decided on June 16, 2010. Kamal Kishore Sharma … Petitioner. Versus Himal Singh ..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Appellant Mr. Adarsh K. Vashishta, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral). Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner has suffered a decree for recovery of money. Execution proceedings have been taken out against him by the DH. He gave some undertaking to the Court to deposit a portion of decree money, but did not comply with that undertaking. It was on the undertaking of JD that warrant of attachment of his property had been recalled. Now, when the JD did not abide by his undertaking, the executing Court passed impugned order dated 28.5.2010, for issue of warrant of arrest against him. 3. From the order, it appears that probably there was no request for sending JD to civil prison, Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - because there is no order for deposit of diet money and other expenses for providing subsistence to JD, for being kept in prison. Thus, the order appears to be bad in law. The same is set aside. Petition is disposed of accordingly. 4. Learned counsel for the JD says that the JD, as per undertaking, would be depositing a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- within two days with the executing Court. It is ordered that in case JD-petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- within two days, he will be given sometime by the executing Court, for depositing the rest of the decretal amount and in case he does not deposit the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- within two days, warrant for attachment of his property, both movable and immovable, may be issued. Copy dasti. June 16, 2010 (PC). (Surjit Singh), J.