Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

Krishna Prasad Decree-Holder v. Bidya Nanda Judgment-Debtor .

Patna High Court
Jul 26, 1917
Important Paras
Please sign up to view Important Paras.

Chamier, C.J:— This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Patna affirming an order of the Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Patna, dismissing an application for the issue of a warrant for the arrest of the judgment debtor. The Subordinate Judge says that the decree-holder is not entitled to the issue of a warrant because the judgment-debtor does not reside within the jurisdiction of the Court. This is not a sufficient reason for refusing to issue a warrant. The District Judge says that the jurisdiction of the Court to arrest in execution is territorial only and he therefore dismissed the appeal. I agree with the District Judge that the jurisdiction is territorial, that is to say, that a warrant of arrest issued by the Subordinate Judge of Patna must be executed, if at all within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge of Patna, but the fact that the judgment-debtor, at the time of the application, did not reside within the jurisdiction is not necessarily a sufficient reason for refusing to issue a warrant. The decree-holder may have information that the judgment-debtor is about to come within the jurisdiction and he may apply for a warrant in order that he may arrest the judgment-debtor as soon as the latter comes within the jurisdiction.

2. By this I must not be understood to mean that it would be proper for the Court to issue a warrant to lie in the office for an indefinite time. A time must be fixed for the return of the warrant. The decree-holder in this Court suggests that it would be possible to execute the Subordinate Judge's warrant outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge.

3. I cannot accept the suggestion. I would set aside the orders of the Courts below and direct them to dispose of the application according to law. As however the intention of the decree-holder seems to have been to execute the warrant outside the jurisdiction I would make no order as to costs.

4. Sharfuddin, J.:— I agree.

V.S/R.K

5. Order set aside.