The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, has set aside an order that sent a judgment debtor to civil prison without giving him a chance to be heard. The court held that such an action violates basic principles of natural justice and personal liberty, even in execution proceedings. The ruling came in a writ petition filed by farmers from Nanded district challenging the execution court’s order.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a long-standing civil dispute between Purbha Dhutde and others, and Mohd. Jafar Shaikh. A decree had been passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 456 of 2002 in favour of the decree holder.
Read Also:- Custody Battles Can’t Be Won by Exclusion: Delhi High Court Upholds Father’s Rights
When the decree was allegedly not complied with, execution proceedings were initiated in 2021. During these proceedings, the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mudkhed, passed an order on April 18, 2023, directing the detention of the judgment debtor in civil prison for one month.
Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners approached the Bombay High Court, arguing that the detention was ordered without any notice or opportunity of hearing.
Arguments Before the Court
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that sending a person to civil prison directly affects personal liberty and cannot be done mechanically. It was argued that:
- No notice was issued before passing the detention order
- No opportunity of hearing was granted
- The executing court failed to follow mandatory legal safeguards
Read Also:- Remarried Childless Widow Can Continue Family Pension, Parents Have No Right: Delhi High Court
Relying on a recent Supreme Court judgment, the petitioners contended that even in execution proceedings, the court must follow principles of natural justice.
On the other hand, the respondent’s counsel argued that the decree had been passed as far back as 2004 and that the judgment debtor had willfully disobeyed the court order. According to him, repeated non-compliance justified strict action, including detention.
Court’s Observation
Justice Siddheshwar S. Thombre carefully examined the record and found serious procedural lapses in the executing court’s approach.
The Court noted that deprivation of liberty is a serious matter and cannot be ordered casually. Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bhudev Mallick vs. Ranajit Ghoshal, the Bench observed:
“Before passing an order of arrest or detention, the executing court must give the judgment debtor an opportunity of being heard. Failure to do so strikes at the root of natural justice.”
The High Court made it clear that even if a decree has been violated, the law requires the court to first issue notice and seek an explanation before taking coercive steps like civil imprisonment.
The Court also pointed out that the executing court had overlooked this mandatory requirement, making the order legally unsustainable.
Final Decision of the Court
Allowing the writ petition, the Bombay High Court passed the following directions:
- The order dated April 18, 2023, directing civil imprisonment was quashed
- The decree holder was permitted to withdraw ₹9,000 deposited as subsistence allowance
- The executing court was directed to decide the execution proceedings afresh in accordance with law within one year
With this, the High Court reaffirmed that personal liberty cannot be curtailed without due process, even during execution of civil decrees.
Case Title: Purbha s/o Tulsa Dhutde & Ors. vs Mohd. Jafar Shaikh
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 5563 of 2023
Decision Date: 23 January 2026
