Former TRIFED Employee Avoids Arrest Over Unpaid Occupation Damages As Delhi HC Upholds Execution Dismissal, Finding No Proof He Could Pay

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Executing Court’s dismissal of the execution petition was unsustainable because the matter was listed for consideration of the arrest application rather than for final disposal.

The court held

The Court held that TRIFED had not shown any infirmity in the Executing Court’s order or established grounds for arrest and detention.

It also directed

It dismissed the appeal and disposed of the pending applications accordingly.

01Facts

The respondent, a former TRIFED employee, remained in occupation of premises allotted to him during his employment after his removal in 1996.

¶ 3–6

An Estate Officer ordered him to pay damages of ₹4,37,505 with future interest at 18%; the order was upheld on appeal, and the respondent’s writ petition was disposed of with his liability affirmed.

¶ 3–6

TRIFED initiated execution proceedings in 2015.

¶ 7–8, 16

After the respondent filed affidavits disclosing his assets and income, TRIFED applied for his arrest and detention in February 2025.

¶ 7–8, 16

On 7 March 2025, the Executing Court dismissed both the arrest application and the execution petition, finding that no executable assets had been identified despite repeated opportunities to TRIFED.

¶ 7–8, 16

TRIFED appealed, arguing that the execution petition was dismissed on a date listed only for the arrest application and that the respondent had caused the delay.

¶ 10–12

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Executing Court’s dismissal of the execution petition was unsustainable because the matter was listed for consideration of the arrest application rather than for final disposal.

¶ 15, 20

ii.2. Whether the respondent’s alleged delay in the execution proceedings justified setting aside the dismissal of the execution petition.

¶ 15, 21–22

iii.3. Whether TRIFED established the respondent’s means and wilful refusal or neglect to pay so as to justify arrest and detention under the CPC.

¶ 22–24

03Law Applied

Section 51, proviso, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), requires the decree-holder seeking execution by arrest and detention to establish by cogent material that the judgment-debtor has, or has had since the date of the decree, the means to pay the decretal amount or a substantial part of it, and has nevertheless refused or neglected to pay; the burden rests on the decree-holder.

¶ 23

Delay by a judgment-debtor does not discharge that burden, nor does it require the Executing Court to keep execution pending indefinitely.

¶ 22

The appeal was brought under Section 96 read with Order XXI Rule 58 CPC, and the arrest application was made under Order XXI Rule 11-A read with Section 151 CPC.

¶ 1–2

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 96 Section 51

04Reasoning

The Court rejected the procedural challenge because the execution petition had remained pending for nearly a decade, TRIFED had received repeated opportunities—including a final opportunity in December 2024—to identify assets, and the arrest application introduced no fresh material; in those circumstances, dismissal on the date listed for further proceedings did not deprive TRIFED of a reasonable opportunity.

¶ 17–20

The record also showed that TRIFED had itself sought to keep the matter pending in 2019, while the respondent’s delay in filing asset affidavits had been addressed by costs and was followed by disclosure.

¶ 21

In any event, TRIFED produced no material establishing that the respondent had sufficient means and wilfully refused or neglected to pay; it also failed to identify any attachable asset despite the disclosure process and an opportunity to file additional documents before the High Court.

¶ 22–25