Judgment :- 1. The petitioner herein is the respondent in the main appeal. He has filed the present petition for the following relief: To issue an order directing the Passport Officer, Madras, to impound the passports issued to the respondents, who are the appellants in the main appeal, pending the realisation of the decree amount in O.S. No. 712 of 1987 on the file of the Sixth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, after the disposal of the appeal. 2. The respondents, who are the appellants in the appeal, filed the above appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 712 of 1987 on the file of the Sixth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, dated 19.10.1990 by which the petitioners suit for Rs. 98,380/- with interest at 24% per annum was decreed by importing the theory of contribution on a promissory note. Along with appeal, the respondents filed C.M.P. No. 15002 of 1991 for stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No. 712 of 1987 pending disposal of the appeal. M. Srinivasan, J., was pleased to grant interim stay on 14.11.1991. The same was made absolute on condition the respondents herein deposit one half of the amount due under the decree as on date, in the trial court within twelve weeks from 24.4.1992 failing which the stay will stand vacated. The petitioner herein was permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing security. The respondents herein were granted three weeks time by way of extension for payment of the amount ordered in C.M.P. No. 15002 of 1991, by order dated 21.7.1992 in C.M.P. No. 9249 of 1992. By order dated 20.8.1992 in C.M.P. No. 10727 of 1992, further extension of time till 28.8.1992 was also granted to the respondents to deposit the amount. It is now stated that the direction given by this Court has been complied with and that a sum of more than rupees one lakh and the costs of suit have already been deposited in the trial court and withdrawn by the petitioner herein. 3. While so, the present application has been filed by the respondent in the appeal to direct the Passport Officer, Madras, to impound the passports issued to the respondents pending realisation of the decree amount in O.S. No. 712 of 1987, and after the disposal of the above appeal. 4. 3. While so, the present application has been filed by the respondent in the appeal to direct the Passport Officer, Madras, to impound the passports issued to the respondents pending realisation of the decree amount in O.S. No. 712 of 1987, and after the disposal of the above appeal. 4. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent Batson James, who is equally liable under the decree, is leaving India on 17.9.1992 for migrating in Australia and thereafter, he will not becoming to India at all. It is stated that the suit is upon a liability of the respondents incurred by the petitioner discharging their liability on a promissory note, which was liable to be paid by the respondents. The respondents did not discharge their liability and the petitioner was threatened to be proceeded against for the recovery of the whole amount under the promissory note, as he was a co-signatory of the said promissory note. The petitioner called upon the respondents to discharge the promissory note, which was to be discharged by them and on their failure and to avoid a claim for a higher amount, the petitioner settled the claim of the promisee of the promote by discharge of the same. The promisee then duly endorsed the hypothecation of the machineries and other properties belonging to the 2nd respondent as security. The 2nd respondent has since then sold the said business for a very valuable consideration without notice to the petitioner and without his consent or knowledge. This was done by the 2nd respondent with a view to defeat the rightful claim of the petitioner thereon and to prevent the petitioner from realising the fruits of the decree by proceeding against the said property. The intention of the 2nd respondent under the aid and advice of the 1st respondent, who is the father of the 2nd respondent, is to leave the petitioner high and dry in the realisation of the fruits of the decree. The intention of the 2nd respondent under the aid and advice of the 1st respondent, who is the father of the 2nd respondent, is to leave the petitioner high and dry in the realisation of the fruits of the decree. It is also stated that the 1st respondent is also planning to leave India no sooner than the 2nd respondent is able to establish himself in Australia and when once they leave India, they would abandon the appeal and will not be able to answer the process of this Court and until and unless they provide for meeting the decree amount, they or any one of them should not be allowed to leave India, and their leaving India is in violation of the Indian Passports Act and therefore, unless the respondents are prevented from leaving India by an order of impounding their passports, the petitioner would be seriously prejudiced in the recovery of the decree amount. 5. The petitioner was resisted by the respondents. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the respondents have deposited in all Rs. 1,02,550/-, which is more than the suit amount of Rs. 98,380/-and this Court even permitted the petitioner to withdraw the amount without furnishing security. It is too much for the petitioner to file the present petition seeking impounding of the passports of the respondents as if they are fugitives. The very fact that the respondents had deposited a huge amount covering the entire suit claim shows their good intention. By having the passports of the respondents impounded, the petitioner can prevent the respondents from going abroad to earn money and in the process, he would be a big loser, for, they may not have the wherewithal to pay if they lose the appeal, unless their freedom to earn in their ventures is not curtailed as though they were the petitioners bonded slaves. Therefore, only if the petitioner adopts the attitude of live and let live, he would stand to gain. The formula is always payment of half the decree amount and the respondents have paid it with high rate of interest and the costs. 6. As stated above, the present application was filed under S. 10(3)(h) of the Passports Act, 1967, and under S. 151 C.P.C. S. 10(3)(h) of the Passports Act, 1967, reads as follows:— “10. Variation, impounding and revocation of passports and travel documents. “10. 6. As stated above, the present application was filed under S. 10(3)(h) of the Passports Act, 1967, and under S. 151 C.P.C. S. 10(3)(h) of the Passports Act, 1967, reads as follows:— “10. Variation, impounding and revocation of passports and travel documents. “10. Variation, impounding and revocation of passports and travel documents. 1) xxxx (2) xxxx (3) The passport authority may impound or cause to be impounded or revoke a passport or travel document,- (a) to (g) xxxx (h) If it is brought to the notice of the passport authority that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the holder of the passport or travel document has been issued by a Court under any law for the time being in force or if an order prohibiting the departure from India of the holder of the passport or other travel document has been made by any such court and the passport authority is satisfied that that a warrant or summons has been so issued or an order has been so made.” 7. I have heard Mr. C. Jose Ukkur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.A. Sadanand, learned counsel for the respondents. 8. According to Mr. M.A. Sadanand, learned counsel for the respondents, the respondents have not committed any offence or violated any law. There is no summons or warrant issued against any of the respondents by any court much less by this Court. The warrant or summons has to be issued by a criminal court on a complaint, either in police case or private complaint. A disputed money claim in a civil court cannot trigger an order for impounding a passport, especially after half the decree amount has been paid to the petitioner by the respondents as ordered by this Court. The Passports Act, 1967, is a special legislation, which is a complete code by itself governing all aspects of passports. Hence, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, S. 151 C.P.C. cannot be invoked to impound the passports of the respondents. It is further urged by Mr. M.A. Sadanand, learned counsel for the respondents, that the passport authority alone can impound or revoke a passport or a travel document and that this Court cannot exercise such power, which is to be exercised by an authority under the Passports Act, 1967. Mr. It is further urged by Mr. M.A. Sadanand, learned counsel for the respondents, that the passport authority alone can impound or revoke a passport or a travel document and that this Court cannot exercise such power, which is to be exercised by an authority under the Passports Act, 1967. Mr. M.A. Sadanand, learned counsel for the respondents, is not right in his submission. S. 10(3)(h) of the Passports Act, 1967, provides two things. The passport authority may impound a passport if it is brought to the notice of that authority that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the holder of the passport or travel document has been issued by a Court under any law for the time being in force. The second limb of the proviso to S. 10(3)(h) of the Passports Act provides that the Passport Authority may impound or revoke a passport or a travel document if an order prohibiting from departure from India of the holder of the passport or other travel document has been made by any such court and the passport authority is satisfied that a warrant or summons has been so issued or an order has been so made. Thus, it is clearly seen that the passport authority has been empowered to impound the passport or travel document on the issue of summons for the appearance or warrant for arrest of the holder of the passport or an order being made by court prohibiting departure from India of the holder of the passport. Hence, I am of the view, that the power of the court under S. 10(3)(h) of the Passports Act has to be exercised either by prohibiting the passport holder from departing from India or issuing summons or warrant for appearance or warrant for arrest. 10. The argument of Mr. M.A. Sadanand, learned counsel for the respondents, that a warrant or summon has to be issued by a criminal court on a complaint, either in police case or private complaint, and that a disputed money claim in a civil court cannot trigger an order for impounding a passport, cannot be accepted. S. 10(3)(h) of the Passports Act provides that the Passport Authority may impound a passport pursuant to an order issued by the court if it is satisfied that a warrantor summons has been so issued or an order has been so made. S. 10(3)(h) of the Passports Act provides that the Passport Authority may impound a passport pursuant to an order issued by the court if it is satisfied that a warrantor summons has been so issued or an order has been so made. Thus, it enables both the criminal court and the civil court to issue appropriate directions in exercise of its power provided under S. 10 (3)(h) of the Passports Act, 1967. 11. I am unable to uphold the contention of Mr. M.A. Sadanand, learned counsel for the respondents, that the power to issue warrant or summons under S. 10(3)(h) of the Passports Act is restricted only to Criminal Courts. It cannot be gainsaid that summons for personal appearance or arrest of a person can be ordered by both Civil and Criminal Courts. There is no warrant for restricting the applicability of sub-clause (h) of S. 10(3) of the Passports Act only to summons or warrants issued by Criminal Courts. In the absence of any such restriction, either express or implied, the aforesaid provision has to be interpreted so as to embrace within its purview the summons of Civil Courts as well. 12. Further, the prayer of the petitioner is for issuing an order directing the Passport Officer, Madras, to impound the passports issued to the respondents pending realisation of the amounts decreed in O.S. No. 712 of 1987. Such a prayer, in my opinion, cannot be granted by this Court, for, the power of the Court as explained above is only to issue summons or warrant or issue an order prohibiting the departure from India of the respondents. Even otherwise, I am fully satisfied that no case has been made out for issuing such orders or directions since interest of the petitioner/plaintiff has been substantially protected and safeguarded by earlier orders of this Court pursuant to which the respondents have deposited rupees one lakh and odd, which was admittedly withdrawn by the petitioner as per orders of Court. The power of the Court under S. 10(3)(h) of the Passports Act to pass an order prohibiting the departure of a person from India has to be made only in exceptional and rare cases where there are necessary grounds and reasons and that power cannot be exercised liberally. The power of the Court under S. 10(3)(h) of the Passports Act to pass an order prohibiting the departure of a person from India has to be made only in exceptional and rare cases where there are necessary grounds and reasons and that power cannot be exercised liberally. If ultimately the respondents herein succeeds in the appeal, an order prohibiting departure from India would result in irreparable harm and injury especially in a case like this where the 2nd respondent is taking up an assignment abroad. At this stage, it cannot be predicted as the result of the appeal. 13. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed.