Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir · body

2025 DAILYLAW 11304 (JK)

MOHAMMAD ADFAR DAR v. IMTIYAZ AHMAD BHAT

CM(M)/497/2025 · 2025-11-17

Sanjay Dhar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

S. No.14 Regular List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) No.497/2025 CM No.7519/2025 MOHAMMAD ADFAR DAR …..Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. S.N.Ratanpuri and Ms.Fiza, Advocates V/s IMTIYAZ AHMAD BHAT … ..Respondent(s) Through : Mr.Showkat Ali Khan, Caveator CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 17.11.2025 1. The petitioner through the medium of present petition has challenged order dated 08.11.2025, passed by learned Sub Judge, Pulwama, whereby a direction has been issued for arrest of the petitioner for his lodgment in civil prison till he makes the payment, with the further direction that the respondents shall deposit the diet expenses. 2. Issue notice to the respondents. 3. Mr. Showkat Ali Khan, advocate who is on caveat accepts notice on behalf of respondents. Caveat shall stand discharged. 4. It appears that a compromise was arrived at between the parties in Lok Adalat in respect of complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner under Negotiable Instruments Act. It also appears that in terms of compromise dated 14.12.2024, an award came to be passed by the Lok Adalat on the same date, whereby the petitioner was bound down to pay an amount of Rs.11.50 lacs to the respondent in six installments. CM(M) No.497/2025 Page 2 The first installment was to be paid on 28.02.2025 and the last installment was to be paid by 28.07.2025. It appears that the petitioner defaulted in paying the installments, as a result of which the respondents filed execution petition before learned Executing Court. 5. A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the petitioner, who was represented by his counsel, had projected before the Executing Court that his estate/assets have already been attached by Jammu and Kashmir Bank under Section 40 of SARFAESI Act. It is in these circumstances that learned Executing Court issued warrant for detention of the petitioner in civil prison. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is direct contravention of principals of Section 58 of CPC, which provide that detention period cannot exceed three months. It has been further contended that the petitioner had offered his land to the respondent in lieu of decretal amount, but he refused to take the said land. The learned counsel has also contended that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before directing his lodgment in the civil prison. 7. If we have a look at the provisions contained in Rule 37 of Order 21 of CPC, the Executing Court has to issue a notice to a judgment debtor calling upon him to appear before the Court to show cause why he should not be committed to civil prison. CM(M) No.497/2025 Page 3 8. In the present case the petitioner/judgment debtor was already present before the Court through his counsel, who had made a submission before the Court that the property of the petitioner/judgment debtor had been attached by J&K Bank Ltd. in connection with the proceedings under SARFAESI Act. In these circumstances, there was no need to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner/judgment debtor, when he had already made known to the Executing Court that his assets were already under attachment. Hence the learned Executing Court was right in straightway directing the detention of petitioner in a civil prison, once it was made known to the said Court by the petitioner that he has no unencumbered assets to satisfy the decree. However, the learned Executing Court could not have directed detention of the petitioner in civil prison for an indefinite period. To that extent, the impugned order deserves to be modified. 9. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of by modifying the impugned order to the extent that the petitioner, in case he has failed to satisfy the decree, shall suffer detention in civil prison for a period not exceeding three months. 10. Copy of this order be sent to the learned Executing Court. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR 17.11.2025 Sarveeda Sarveeda Nissar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document every page at bottom left side 19.11.2025 10:47