Disposed

Smt. Meena Agrawal v. H. D. B. Financial Service Limited

Chhattisgarh HC11 Aug 2024WP227/122/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Judgment debtors challenged issuance of warrant of arrest in an execution proceeding, contending the Executing Court failed to record satisfaction required by Section 51 CPC provisos. Court set aside the warrant of arrest, directed appearance and filing of an affidavit on decree satisfaction within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Warrant of arrest set aside; judgment debtor to appear when directed and furnish affidavit about decree satisfaction within 30 days.

Smt. Meena Agrawal Vs H. D. B. Financial… — Execution and Attachment | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 3

2024:CGHC:30294

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WP227 No. 122 of 2021

¶6

Smt. Meena Agrawal W/o Rajesh Agrawal Aged About 52 Years R/o House No. 42/03 Ward No. 15, Bhagwanpur, Raghavpuri Behind Punjab Garden Ambikapur Surguja Chhattisgarh

¶7

Rajesh Agrawal S/o Hukumchandra Agrawal Aged About 55 Years R/o House No. 42/03 Ward No. 15, Bhagwanpur, Raghavpuri Behind Punjab Garden Ambikapur Surguja Chhattisgarh

¶8

.. Petitioners

¶9

versus

¶10

H. D. B. Financial Service Limited Decree Holder Registered Office Radhika Second Floor Law Garden Road Navrangpur Ahmedabad 380009 Through Attorney Rahul Gupta Tetory Manager Branch Office Manendragarh Road Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

For Petitioners : Shri S.R. Sinha with Shri Nishi Kant Sinha, Adv. For Respondent : Shri Shiv Sewak on behalf of Shri Jai Prakash Shukla, Advocate.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J

¶14

Order On Board

¶15

12/08/2024

¶16

Digitally signed by KRISHNA KRISHNA KUMAR KUMAR BARVE BARVE Date: 2024.08.12 17:11:03 +0530

¶17

The petitioners have filed this petition and prayed for the following

¶18

reliefs:-

¶19

2 / 3

¶20

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the court below, relating to the Execution Case No.42/2014 pending before 5^th Additional Sessions Judge Ambikapur District Surguja (CG)

¶21

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside / Quash the impugned order dated 04.12.2020 passed in Execution Case No.42/2014 by the learned 5^th Additional Sessions Judge Ambikapur District Surguja (CG) in the interest of justice.

¶22

10.3 this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside / Quash the Complete execution proceeding of Execution Case No.42/2014 pending before 5^th Additional Sessions Judge Ambikapur Distict Surguja (CG), in the interest of justice.

¶23

10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the application under Section 47 of C.P.C. for determining the questions in the decree and an application under Section 60 of C.P.C. for releasing the attached property of the petitioner no.1, along with an application under Order 7 Rule 11 r/w section 151 of C.P.C. filed by the petitioner in Execution Case No.42/2014 pending before 5^th Additional Sessions Judge Ambikapur District Surguja (CG)

¶24

10.5 Any other relief (s) that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to rant in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶25

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that he would confine his argument only to the extent that the Executing Court without complying with the provisions under Section 51 of the CPC and without recording its satisfaction, has issued warrant of arrest against the judgment debtors, though judgment debtor No.2 namely, Rajesh Agrawal, husband, is appearing and participating in the proceeding through his counsel. Therefore, instead of warrant of arrest, personal appearance of the judgment/debtors should have been directed, and before sending to the prison, the concerned Court should

¶26

3 / 3

¶27

have issued show cause notice after satisfying the grounds available under proviso (a), (b), (c) of Section 51 of the CPC.

¶28

Per contra, learned counsel for the decree holder would not oppose the said submission.

¶29

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, particularly considering that the judgment/debtor would only confine to the part of the Execution proceeding i.e. the manner in which warrant of arrest has been ordered by the Executing Court, it is expected that the concerned Executing Court shall record its satisfaction in terms of proviso (a), (b) & (c) of Section 51 of the CPC, 1908 and only after recording such satisfaction and after affording sufficient opportunity to both the sides, shall make an order regarding arrest and detention of the judgment/debtor, strictly in accordance with law.

¶30

For the foregoing, the impugned order insofar as warrant of arrest issued against the judgment/debtor is set aside. However, the judgment/debtor is directed to appear before the concerned Court as and when directed and furnish an affidavit about the satisfaction of the said decree. The said affidavit shall be filed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶31

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

¶34

Judge

¶35

Barve

Smt. Meena Agrawal v. H. D. B. Financial Service Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Meena Agrawal v. H. D. B. Financial Service Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Onkar Sahu Vs Raspal Singh

Ramkhilawan Nirmalkar Vs Tulesh Vaishnav

Smt. Asha Devi Vs Smt. Seema Singh

Surendra Aayam Vs Magma Fincorp Ltd.

Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ld, Vs M/S Rajpootana Chables and Conductors Vt. Ltd.

Hrishikesh Yadav Vs Harihar Yadav