The Punjab & Haryana High Court has clarified that courts must balance enforcement of decrees with the practical ability of judgment debtors to pay, particularly when a credible proposal for installment settlement is made. This judgment reinforces the principle that coercive measures like arrest should not be the first resort in civil recovery cases.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The respondent, Union Bank of India, filed a suit under Order XXXIV Rules 5 and 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal, seeking recovery of Rs. 10,13,254.40 along with interest from 01.02.2003. The suit was filed against M/s Punit Departmental Store and Gajender Singh (petitioner No. 2).
Key Facts
- Defendant No. 2, Gajender Singh, initially appeared in the suit and sought time to file a written statement
- He subsequently failed to appear, leading to ex parte proceedings
- The trial court passed a decree in favor of the bank on 17.05.2024
- The decree amount was Rs. 10,13,254.40 plus interest from 01.02.2003
- The bank filed an execution petition and applied for conditional warrants of arrest against Gajender Singh
- Gajender Singh is identified as a person of limited means, unable to pay the entire decretal amount in a lump sum
Procedural History
- 17.05.2024: Decree passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal
- 08.12.2025: First conditional warrant of arrest issued against petitioner No. 2
- 22.12.2025: Second conditional warrant issued
- 08.01.2026: Third conditional warrant issued
- 22.01.2026: Fourth conditional warrant issued
- 02.02.2026: Fifth conditional warrant issued
- 07.02.2026: Sixth conditional warrant issued
- 05.03.2026: Seventh conditional warrant issued
- 16.03.2026: Eighth conditional warrant issued
- 02.04.2026: Civil Revision Petition filed before the High Court challenging all eight warrants
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of all eight conditional arrest warrants issued between 08.12.2025 and 16.03.2026, and an opportunity to settle the decretal amount through installments.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the issuance of multiple conditional warrants of arrest against a judgment debtor who has offered to pay a substantial part of the decretal amount and proposed a structured installment plan constitutes an abuse of process under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel submitted that Gajender Singh is financially incapable of paying the entire decretal amount at once but is willing to pay Rs. 2,00,000 within four weeks and submit a detailed installment schedule for the balance. He emphasized that arrest should be a last resort under civil execution proceedings and that the proposal demonstrates bonafide intent to settle.
For the Respondent
The respondent did not appear or file any written submission. The Court dispensed with notice to the respondent, noting that issuance of notice would unnecessarily delay proceedings and that the petitioner’s offer was sufficiently concrete to warrant immediate consideration.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of execution proceedings under the CPC and the proportionality of arrest as a coercive measure. It noted that while the decree holder has a right to enforce the decree, the court must also consider the debtor’s capacity to pay and the possibility of amicable settlement.
"This Court is of the considered opinion that an opportunity be granted to the petitioners to settle the dispute with the respondent - Decree Holder."
The Court observed that the petitioner had not disputed the decree’s validity, nor had he shown any intention to evade liability. Instead, he had proactively offered a substantial upfront payment and a structured repayment plan. The issuance of eight successive conditional warrants within three months, without any attempt to explore settlement, was deemed disproportionate.
The Court emphasized that arrest under civil execution is not automatic and must be reserved for cases of deliberate defiance or fraudulent evasion. The petitioner’s willingness to deposit Rs. 2,00,000 and submit a payment chart demonstrated a good faith effort to comply.
The Verdict
The petition succeeded. The Court stayed all eight impugned orders dated 08.12.2025 to 16.03.2026. Petitioner No. 2, Gajender Singh, is directed to deposit Rs. 2,00,000 before the Executing Court within four weeks from 02.04.2026, which shall be released to the respondent. He must also submit a detailed installment payment chart for the remaining decretal amount. If the deposit and chart are not submitted within the stipulated period, the stay shall be vacated and the arrest warrants shall revive.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Arrest Is Not Automatic in Civil Execution
- Practitioners must now argue that arrest warrants under Order XXI Rule 37 CPC require proof of wilful default or evasion, not mere inability to pay
- Courts must evaluate the debtor’s financial capacity and willingness to cooperate before issuing arrest warrants
- A credible installment proposal, even if partial, can constitute sufficient grounds to stay arrest
Installment Plans Are Legally Recognized Settlement Tools
- A structured repayment plan submitted to the Executing Court is a valid mechanism to avoid coercive measures
- Courts may conditionally stay arrest warrants pending compliance with such plans
- The upfront deposit of a substantial portion (here, Rs. 2,00,000) strengthens the bonafides of the proposal
- Failure to comply with the installment chart revives the original coercive orders
Procedural Efficiency in Execution Matters
- Courts may dispense with notice to decree holders where the petitioner’s offer is clear, concrete, and in good faith
- The burden shifts to the judgment debtor to demonstrate a realistic repayment plan
- Multiple warrants issued in quick succession without review may be viewed as harassment
