Disobedience of an asset-disclosure order permits detention under Order XXI Rule 41(3).

A money decree for Rs. 50,70,000, jointly and severally against the petitioners and other judgment debtors, was passed by the Civil Court, Pune, on 7 August 2019 and transferred for execution to Palanpur.

On 5 October 2023, the Executing Court directed the judgment debtors to file affidavits disclosing their assets under Order XXI Rule 41(2) CPC; the petitioners did not comply.

The decree holder then applied under Order XXI Rule 41(3) CPC, and the Executing Court ordered the petitioners’ detention in civil prison for up to three months.

The petitioners challenged that order under Article 227, arguing, among other things, that the order wrongly relied on Section 58 CPC and that the application did not state grounds for arrest as required by Order XXI Rule 11A.

1. Whether the Executing Court’s order directing detention could be sustained where its operative part referred to Section 58 CPC, although the application and non-compliance concerned Order XXI Rule 41(3) CPC.

2. Whether the decree holder’s application sufficiently stated grounds for arrest and detention to satisfy Order XXI Rule 11A CPC.

3. Whether the order warranted interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Order XXI Rule 41(2) CPC empowers the executing court to require a judgment debtor to disclose assets by affidavit, and Rule 41(3) permits detention in civil prison for up to three months for disobedience of an order under sub-rule (2).

Order XXI Rule 11A requires an application seeking arrest and detention to state the grounds for that relief.

Section 58 CPC concerns detention in execution of a money decree; the Court treated the reference to that provision as not invalidating an order otherwise within the Executing Court’s power.

Relying on State of Karnataka v. Muniyalla, (1985) 1 SCC 196, the Court applied the principle that citation of a wrong statutory provision does not invalidate an order if it could validly have been made under another provision.

It also applied the restricted scope of Article 227 review, relying on Sameer Suresh Gupta v. Rahul Kumar Agarwal, (2013) 9 SCC 374, and Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022) 4 SCC 181.

The Court found that the petitioners had not complied with the order to disclose their assets, and that the decree holder’s application sought detention specifically because of that disobedience.

Accordingly, the Executing Court had authority to act under Order XXI Rule 41(3), and the reference to Section 58 in the operative order did not invalidate it; the Court also noted that the reference allowed detention to end earlier if the decretal amount was paid.

The application adequately identified non-compliance with the asset-disclosure order as the ground for detention, satisfying the purpose of Rule 11A.

The Court found no perversity, gross illegality, or other basis for supervisory intervention.

The Court dismissed the petition, making no order as to costs.