Surjit Singh vs Punjab State Civil Supplies ... on 20 March, 2012

[Cites 3, Cited by 3]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Surjit Singh vs Punjab State Civil Supplies ... on 20 March, 2012

Bench: M.M.S. Bedi

C.R. No.7588 of 2009 (O&M)                                   [1]




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                                 CHANDIGARH.

                                  C.R. No. 7588 of 2009 (O&M)

                                  Date of Decision: March 20, 2012

Surjit Singh

                                       .....Petitioner

               Vs.

Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and another

                                       .....Respondents


CORAM:         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

                           -.-

Present:-      Mr.Satish Goel, Advocate
               for the petitioner.

               Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate
               for the respondent.


                     -.-

M.M.S. BEDI, J.

The judgment debtor has preferred this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated October 31, 2009 allowing the application of the decree holder- respondents under Order 21 Rule 37 CPC for sending the judgment debtor to jail in case of non- payment of the decretal amount.

C.R. No.7588 of 2009 (O&M) [2]

A perusal of the order dated October 31, 2009 indicates that only conditional warrants have been issued against judgment debtor that in case the judgment debtor deposits the decretal amount, the order of civil imprisonment shall not apply to him. Against the said conditional warrant, the petitioner has approached this Court.

It is not out of place to mention here that this revision petition is pending since 2009 and on April 30, 2010 after arguing the matter for some time, counsel for the petitioner had prayed for an adjournment to find out if petitioner - judgment debtor had any property and to find any other course which could be adopted by the decreed holders to recover the amount. Despite a period of about two years having elapsed after the said order, the petitioner could not satisfy this Court that the judgment debtor had got means to pay the amount of decree. Sufficient opportunity has been given to the petitioner to discharge his liability under the money decree. He cannot claim that he has not been given a fair opportunity to show cause as to why he should not be committed to prison as required under Section 51 of the CPC. The objective of this revision petition is merely to delay the execution of the decree. No ground is made out to interfere in the impugned order.

Dismissed.

March 20, 2012                                     (M.M.S.BEDI)
 sanjay                                              JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court