Skip to main content

Arrest before judgment

Arrest before judgment

Order 38, Rule 1 to 4 provides for arrest before judgment and procedure to be adopted. As a general rule of procedure the creditor has to first obtain a decree from the court and then if the decree is not satisfied, the creditor can resort to execution proceedings to get fruits of the decree. Modes of arrest and attachment of judgment debtor are provided in cases of execution of decree. However, in certain situations creditor can sort arrest of judgment debtor before actual passing of judgment/decree.

Object: The object is to enable the plaintiff to realize the fruits of decree if decree is eventually passed in his favour and to prevent the defendant to defeat the execution of such decree. [Raman Tech and Process Engg. Co. Ltd. v. Solanki Traders, (2008) 2 SCC 302]

Grounds for arrest before judgment [Rule 1]: Order 38 Rule 1 empowers the court to issue a warrant to arrest against the defendant at any stage of the suit on following grounds:

(a) That the defendant, with intent to delay the plaintiff or to avoid any process of the court or obstruct or delay the execution of any decree to be eventually passed against him:

  1. Has absconded or left or is about to abscond or leave the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court, or
  2. Has disposed of or removed from such jurisdiction, his property or any part thereof,

(b) That the defendant is about to leave India under circumstances affording reasonable probability that the execution of decree that may be passed against him may be obstructed or delayed.

If any of the above mentioned grounds exist the court may issue a warrant to arrest the defendant and bring him before the court to show cause why he should not furnish security for his appearance.

Condition when arrest before judgment can be ordered: 

The court must be satisfied about the following two conditions:

(a) The plaintiff's suit must be bona fide and his cause of action must be prima facie unimpeachable subject to his proving the allegations in the plaint, and

(b) The court must have reason to believe on adequate materials that unless this extra ordinary power is exercised, there is a real danger that the defendant will remove himself or his property from the ambit of the powers of the court.

Circumstances when arrest before judgment not allowed: Order 38 Rule 1 provides that an order for arrest before judgment cannot be made in any suit for land or immovable property specified in clause (b) to (d) of Section 16 of C.P.C. 

Procedure to be followed [Rule 2-4]: Where the defendant is brought before the court to show cause why he should not furnish security and he fails to show cause, the court may order him to:

(a) Deposit in court the money or other property sufficient to answer the claim against him, or

(b) Furnish security for his appearance at any time when called upon while suit is pending and until satisfaction of decree that may be passed against him, or

(c) Pay any sum specified in the warrant as sufficient to satisfy plaintiff's claim.

Sureties: Rule 2(2) provides that every surety for defendant's appearance shall bind himself to pay such sum which the defendant may be ordered to pay in the suit if the latter defaults in appearing before the court.

Rule 3 provides that such surety may also apply to the court for his discharge as such and the court shall summon or issue warrant against the defendant to direct him to find a new security after discharging the surety from his obligations.

Failure to provide security [Rule 4]: Where the defendant fails to provide security or find new security under Rules 2 and 3, the court may commit him to civil prison until the decision of suit or until the decree passed against him has been satisfied. However, such detention shall be only for a maximum period of 6 months or, where the value of subject-matter is 50 or less than 50 rupees, for a period of 6 weeks only. If the defendant, however, complies with he order of the court, he shall not be detained in civil prison

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Theories of Punishment

Theories of Punishment Punishment in law serves multiple purposes, and the rationale behind these punishments can be understood through different theories of punishment. These theories form the foundation for justifying punishment and help in shaping laws and sentencing policies. Here’s a detailed explanation of each theory with examples: 1. Deterrent Theory The deterrent theory focuses on preventing crime by imposing severe punishments to create fear among people. The idea is that potential offenders will refrain from committing crimes if they fear punishment. Example : The death penalty or long-term imprisonment for serious offenses like murder or terrorism acts as a deterrent for those considering committing such crimes. 2. Retributive Theory This theory is based on the principle of "an eye for an eye" or giving the offender what they deserve. It focuses on vengeance or moral satisfaction, ensuring the punishment is proportionate to the crime committed. The goal is not to ...
Post a Comment
Read more

APPEALS - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

  Appeals "The word "appeal" means the right of carrying a particular case from an inferior court to a superior court with a view to ascertain whether the judgement is sustainable. An appeal is a creature of statute only and a right of appeal exists where expressly given. A right of appeal is neither an inherent right nor a fundamental right. Right to appeal is not merely a procedural right. It is a substantive right as well. This right accrues on the date of lis though it may be exercised later. Section 372 provides that no appeal lie from any judgment or order of a criminal court except as provided for this Code or any other law for the time being in force." Right of victim to file appeal : In Section 372 a proviso was inserted by Cr.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2008, provides that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the court (i) Acquitting the accused; or (ii) Convicting for a lesser offence; or (iii) Imposing inadequate com...
Post a Comment
Read more

JURISPRUDENCE

  JURISPRUDENCE   Jurisprudence is derived from Latin word ‘juris-prudentia’- knowledge of law or skill in law. Study of jurisprudence first started by Romans. Jeremy Bentham(1748-1832) is known as father of  modern jurisprudence. Jurisprudence is basically the theoretical aspect of the word law. In jurisprudence, we do not deal with the practically applicable pieces of statutory law; rather we try to understand the very essence of law and its various dimensions. Like in the other subjects, for example, geography, we have geographical thought as a subject of study, similarly, in law we have got "legal thought" which is called "jurisprudence". The basic questions that we try to answer in jurisprudence are - What is law?, Why should it exist?. What should be the nature and purpose of the law?, What are rights and duties and what should be their nature?, What is ownership and possession and why does law have to protect them?, etc. Jurisprudence refers to a certain type...
Post a Comment
Read more