SHRI JAGADISH HANAMANTAPPA HEGADE vs SHRI SIDDAPPA NINGAPPA UADAGATTI
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17208
WP No. 108652 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020187862026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 108652 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SHRI JAGADISH HANAMANTAPPA HEGADE
AGE 38 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND CIVIL
CONTRACTOR,
R/O M.CHANDARGI, TQ. RAMDURG,
DIST. BELAGAVI PIN CODE 591114.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R.K. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRI SIDDAPPA NINGAPPA UADAGATTI
AGE 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O DUNDANATTI, NOW AT BETAGERI,
TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI PIN CODE 591233.
…RESPONDENT
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT,
Digitally
signed by
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Location:
high court of
karnataka,
dharwad
bench
ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI SET
ASIDE/QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.10.2026 ISSUING
THE ARREST WARRANT OF THE PETITIONER WITHOUT THERE BEING
ANY APPLICATION BY THE RESPONDENT IN E.P.NO.23/2023 PASSED
BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAMDURG AT ANNEXURE-C IN THE
INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17208
WP No. 108652 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020187862026
THIS WP COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
ORAL ORDER
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
property belonging to the petitioner, who is the judgment
debtor in Execution Petition No.23/2023, has already
been attached and that the Executing Court has directed
the Tahsildar, Ramdurg, to cause the sale of the said
property for recovery of the decretal amount. However,
without there being any application seeking issuance of
an arrest warrant, the Executing Court has suo motu
issued an arrest warrant against the petitioner. Hence,
the present petition.
2. Perused the records.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has furnished a
certified copy of the entire order sheet maintained in
Execution Petition No.23/2023.
4. A perusal of the order sheet indicates that, upon the
execution petition being filed on 05.10.2023, the matter
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17208
WP No. 108652 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020187862026
was listed before the Executing Court on 09.10.2023, on
which date notice was ordered to the judgment debtor,
returnable on 12.12.2023. The notice is stated to have
been served on the judgment debtor on 04.03.2024.
Thereafter, the judgment debtor was represented by
counsel.
5. On 19.08.2024, the decree holder filed an application
under Order XXI Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, along with the Record of Rights, RTC extract,
seeking attachment of the property of the judgment
debtor. Consequently, a direction was issued to the
Tahsildar, Ramdurg, to attach the property. The matter
was thereafter adjourned from time to time awaiting the
report of the Tahsildar.
6. Subsequently, a memo along with a communication from
the Tahsildar and an application seeking sale of the
attached property came to be filed. The Executing Court
allowed the application and directed the Tahsildar,
Ramdurg, to sell the attached property and deposit the
sale proceeds before the Court on or before 15.11.2025.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17208
WP No. 108652 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020187862026
Thereafter, the matter continued to be adjourned at the
same stage, with reminders being issued to the Tahsildar
to effect the sale of the attached property.
7. In the meanwhile, an application seeking impleadment
was filed, and certain third parties also sought to come
on record in the execution proceedings. The said
application was heard and rejected by order dated
18.08.2026. The matter was thereafter listed for further
steps on 31.08.2026 and subsequently adjourned to
03.10.2026. On 03.10.2026, the Executing Court issued
an arrest warrant against the judgment debtor. The said
order is impugned in the present petition.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in the
absence of an application seeking issuance of an arrest
warrant, the Executing Court could not have proceeded to
issue such a warrant. In this regard, he places reliance on
Order XXI Rule 37 read with Section 51 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908.
9. Learned counsel further places reliance on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jolly George Varghese
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17208
WP No. 108652 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020187862026
and Another v. The Bank of Cochin , reported in AIR
1980 SC 470 and submits that, before ordering arrest
and detention of a judgment debtor in execution of a
money decree, the Executing Court is required to
consider the statutory requirements governing such a
measure. He submits that the Court must be satisfied, on
the basis of the relevant material, that the circumstances
warrant such coercive action and that mere failure to
satisfy the decree would not, by itself, justify the
issuance of an arrest warrant.
10. It is further submitted that, when the Executing
Court has already initiated steps for attachment and sale
of the judgment debtor's property and the proceedings in
that regard are pending, there was no justification for
issuing an arrest warrant without following the procedure
prescribed under law. Hence, learned counsel seeks to
have the impugned order set aside.
11. Having regard to the nature of the order impugned
in the present petition, which does not warrant
adjudication of any adverse claim against the private
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17208
WP No. 108652 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020187862026
respondent at this stage, issuance of notice to the
respondent is dispensed with.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jolly
George Varghese , at paragraphs 16 and 18, has held as
follows:
“16. Equally meaningful is the import of
Article 21 of the Constitution in the context
of imprisonment for non-payment of debts.
The high value of human dignity and the
worth of the human person enshrined in
Article 21, read with Arts. 14 and 19,
obligates the State not to incarcerate
except under law which is fair, just and
reasonable in its procedural essence.
Maneka Gandhi's case[1978]1 S.C.R 248
as developed further in Sunil Batra v. Delhi
Administration, Sita Ram & Ors. v. State of
U.P. and Sunil Batra v. Delhi
Administration lays down the proposition.
It is too obvious to need elaboration that
to cast a person in prison because of his
poverty and consequent inability to meet
his contractual liability is appalling. To be
poor, in this land of daridra Narayana, is
no crime and to 'recover' debts by the
procedure of putting one in prison is too
flagrantly violative of Article 21 unless
there is proof of the minimal fairness of his
wilful failure to pay in spite of his sufficient
means and absence of more terribly
pressing claims on his means such as
medical bills to treat cancer or other grave
illness. Unreasonableness and unfairness
in such a procedure is inferable from
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17208
WP No. 108652 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020187862026
Article 11 of the Covenant. But this is
precisely the interpretation we have put on
the Proviso to s. 51 C.P.C. and the lethal
blow of Article 21 cannot strike down the
provision, as now interpreted.
18. The question may squarely arise some
day as to whether the Proviso to section
51 read with Order 21, Rule 37 is in excess
of the Constitutional mandate in Article 21
and bad in part. In the present case since
we are remitting the matter for
reconsideration, the stage has not yet
arisen for us to go into the vires, that is
why we are desisting from that essay.”
13. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed .
The impugned order dated 03.10.2026 issuing an arrest
warrant against the petitioner in Execution Petition
No.23/2023 is hereby quashed.
14. The Executing Court shall proceed further in
accordance with law in terms of the order already passed
for attachment and sale of the property of the judgment
debtor.
15. It is made clear that, in the event an application
seeking arrest of the petitioner is filed, the Executing
Court shall consider the same in accordance with law,
keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17208
WP No. 108652 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020187862026
Supreme Court in Jolly George Varghese’ s case
referred supra .
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE
VB/CT:VP/LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 23