80-Year-Old Debtor Can Contest Arrest Plea After Karnataka HC Says Executing Court Issued Notice, Not Warrant

In execution proceedings, the Decree Holder applied under Order XXI Rule 37 CPC for an arrest notice against Judgment Debtor No. 1.

On 17 September 2026, the Executing Court directed that an arrest notice issue if process fee was paid.

The Judgment Debtor sought recall of that order, but the application was rejected on 30 September 2026.

He challenged both orders, contending that the first had been made without notice and that the matter was listed for a day on which the Civil Court was on vacation.

Order XXI Rule 37 CPC governs the procedure for seeking arrest and detention of a judgment debtor in execution of a decree.

The Court may dispense with notice where it is satisfied that the judgment debtor is likely to abscond or leave the court’s jurisdiction, or is otherwise delaying execution; absent such a finding, the order must be understood in its terms.

No judicial precedents were cited.

The High Court read the 17 September order as directing issuance of notice on the Decree Holder’s application—not as issuing an arrest warrant or dispensing with notice.

The order recorded no finding that the Judgment Debtor was likely to abscond, leave the jurisdiction, or delay execution.

Since the Rule 37 application remained pending, there was no basis to recall the notice order; the Judgment Debtor could still appear and object to the application.

The Court also permitted him to appear on a specified date and seek appropriate relief before the Executing Court.

It permitted the Judgment Debtor to appear before the Executing Court on 27 October 2026 and file objections to the Rule 37 application, directing the Executing Court to hear both parties and pass appropriate orders.

The High Court expressed no view on the merits of that application and permitted the Decree Holder to seek modification because the order had been made without notice to it.