Pratap Banduji Jadhav vs Chandanbai Sonaji Jogdand… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

Pratap Banduji Jadhav vs Chandanbai Sonaji Jogdand… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether issuance of an arrest warrant under Order 21 Rule 38 of the Civil Procedure Code for execution of the decree, without first resorting to other modes of execution, was an improper adoption of that procedure — the contention pressed by the petitioner's counsel that this Court examined before deciding on interference under Article 227. +1 more

Court's answer

On the legal and factual position (undeposited award, no plausible reason for inability to pay, J.D. no.2 being an advocate with sufficient means who failed to deposit), this Court finds no reason to interfere in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the impugned arrest-warrant order, and rejects the writ petition.

Ratio / Principle

Although the award of compensation was passed on 4.7.2023, the petitioner and others failed to deposit the compensation amount till the date of this petition, and respondent no.1, the mother of the deceased, had not received any amount — the factual basis on which the Court declined interference.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 15.2.2025 of the Civil Judge Senior Division, Parbhani (Special Darkhast No.(WCFA)no.21 of 2023, below Exhibit-38) issuing an arrest warrant against the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 38 of the Civil Procedure Code for execution of the award in W.C.F.A. No.6 of 2017 — compensation of Rs.8,15,400/- with penalty of Rs.4,07,700/- and interest @ 12% p.a. Counsel for the petitioner argued that arrest is an extreme step and other modes of execution should have been resorted to first. The Court noted that although the award was passed on 4.7.2023, the petitioner and others had failed to deposit the compensation; respondent no.1, mother of the deceased, had received nothing; the petitioner gave no plausible reason for his inability to pay; and J.D. no.2, an advocate with sufficient means, had failed to deposit. When invited to deposit at least part of the amount, the petitioner pleaded inability without reasons. Finding no reason to interfere in writ jurisdiction under Article 227, the Court rejected the writ petition.

wp 4485.25.odt

2026:BHC-AUG:9259

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

927 WRIT PETITION NO.4485 OF 2025

Pratap Banduji Jadhav VERSUS

Chandanbai Sonaji Jogdand And Others

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Pravin N Kalani

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. Dated : February 25, 2026

PER COURT :-

Present writ petition takes exception to the order dated 15.2.2025 passed below Exhibit-38 by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Parbhani in Special Darkhast No.(WCFA)no.21 of 2023, whereby Arrest Warrant has been issued against petitioner in pursuance to the judgment and award passed in W.C.F.A. No.6 of 2017 in favour of respondents.

Petitioner is respondent in W.C.F.A. No.6 of 2017. It was filed by respondent no.1 seeking compensation under section 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 towards death of Suresh Sonaji Jogdand, who died on 3.12.2025, while he was employed at the residence of petitioner through a contractor. W.C.F.A.No.6 of 2017 has been finally adjudicated and petitioner and others are held liable to pay the compensation

2 wp 4485.25.odt

of Rs.8,15,400/- with penalty of Rs.4,07,700/- and interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the accident till its realization. Admittedly, the aforesaid award has attained the finality.

Since petitioner failed to comply with the Award, respondent filed an application below Exhibit-38 seeking issuance of arrest warrant against the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 38 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Mr. Kalani, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, issuance of arrest warrant for execution of the decree is extreme step and unless other modes of execution resorted, procedure contemplated under Order 21 Rule 38 could not have been adopted.

Perusal of the impugned order shows that although award of compensation is passed on 4.7.2023, till this date, petitioner and others failed to deposit compensation amount. Respondent no.1, who is mother of the deceased has not received any amount till this date. The petitioner is not giving plausible reason showing his inability to pay the amount. The Executing Court observed that J.D. no.2 is an advocate and having sufficient means to satisfy the award, but failed to

wp 4485.25.odt

3

deposit amount. In this backdrop, impugned order has been passed.

When this Court asked learned advocate appearing for the petitioner to deposit at least part of the amount, on instructions, it is submitted that petitioner is not in a position to deposit the amount, but no reasons are given therefor. In wake of aforesaid legal and factual position, this Court finds no reason to interfere in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In result, writ Petition stands rejected .

( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. )

AAA