ORDER : PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J. Heard learned counsel - Sri Siddharth Suman for petitioner as well as learned counsel - Sri Sunil S. Rao for respondents. 2. The petitioner/judgment debtor is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 13.6.2025 passed by the LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Execution Petition No.2553/2023. By the impugned order, the Executing Court issued arrest warrant against the petitioner/judgment debtor and also issued direction to the PSI of the concerned jurisdiction to assist the Bailiff to execute the arrest warrant against the petitioner/ judgment debtor. 3. The petitioner/judgment debtor has filed a suit in O.S. No.2408/2022 before the City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, for the relief of permanent injunction. In the said suit filed by the petitioner/judgment debtor, the respondents/decree holders preferred a counter-claim, apart from filing the written statement. 4. Alongwith the suit, the petitioner/judgment debtor filed an application for Temporary Injunction restraining the respondents/decree holders from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property/premises. The said application was allowed by the exparte order dated 7.4.2022 and later confirmed on 15.7.2023. 5. Subsequently, on 7.7.2022 the respondents/decree holders filed I.A. No.2 under Section 151 of the CPC for a direction to the petitioner/judgment debtor to deposit the arrears of rent in a sum of Rs.96,79,140/-. 6. This being the state of affairs, petitioner/judgment debtor (plaintiff) filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC to reject the counter-claim filed by the respondents/defendants/decree holders for not disclosing the cause of action and the same having not preceded by a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The trial Court taking note of the same rejected the counter-claim filed by the respondents/defendants vide its order dated 15.7.2023. 7. The petitioner/judgment debtor being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court on I.A. No.2 preferred Writ Petition No.20899/2023, wherein this Court vide its order dated 25.1.2024 directed the petitioner/judgment debtor to deposit a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- and accordingly, petitioner/judgment debtor issued a post-dated cheque, but the same was dishonoured. Subsequently, this Court vide order dated 19.2.2024 directed the petitioner/judgment debtor to deposit additional sum of Rs.15,00,000/- on or before 4.3.2024, which the petitioner was unable to comply. Hence, the said writ petition came to be dismissed on 4.3.2024. 8. Subsequently, this Court vide order dated 19.2.2024 directed the petitioner/judgment debtor to deposit additional sum of Rs.15,00,000/- on or before 4.3.2024, which the petitioner was unable to comply. Hence, the said writ petition came to be dismissed on 4.3.2024. 8. It is the case of petitioner/judgment debtor that he vacated the 2 nd floor of the suit schedule premises in December-2021 and handed over the possession to Respondent No.2. It is also contended by petitioner/judgment debtor that he has paid a total sum of Rs.2,51,43,406/- including the component of cash vide Annexure-F. 9. When things stood thus, it is contended by learned counsel that on 13.6.2025 the Executing Court issued arrest warrant against the petitioner/judgment debtor in the Execution Petition. It is further contended that no show cause notice was issued and notice was not duly served on the judgment debtor and the petitioner/ judgment debtor was not even aware of pendency of the execution proceedings. Learned counsel further contends that the Executing Court proceeded to issue arrest warrant and the petitioner/judgment debtor came to be arrested on 2.7.2025 and on the very same day, an application was filed on behalf of petitioner/judgment debtor, and was enlarged on bail. Therefore, due to the unfortunate incident of arrest without following the due process of law, the petitioner/judgment debtor was coerced to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- by way of cheque with a further undertaking to pay Rs.20,00,000/- by 5.7.2025. 10. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.6.2025, whereby the Executing Court issued arrest warrant, due to which petitioner had to execute a personal bond and make a payment of Rs.3,00,000/- and undertake to pay further amount of Rs.20,00,000/-, is before this Court. 11. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner/judgment debtor that the impugned order passed by the Executing Court is perverse, illegal, arbitrary, unjust and abuse of process of the Court. He further contends that no jurisdiction vested with the trial Court to direct the petitioner/judgment debtor to pay a sum of Rs.96,79,140/- towards the alleged arrears of rent, when the counter-claim of the respondents came to be rejected by the trial Court. Learned counsel further contends that the Executing Court has exercised the jurisdiction with material irregularity and committed a grave error of law by issuance of the arrest warrant. Learned counsel further contends that the Executing Court has exercised the jurisdiction with material irregularity and committed a grave error of law by issuance of the arrest warrant. He further contends that due to the unfortunate incident of arrest without following the due process of law, the petitioner was constrained by duress to pay Rs.3,00,000/- with a further undertaking to pay Rs.20,00,000/- by 5.7.2025. Therefore, it is contended that personal liberty of the petitioner/judgment debtor was infringed by the impugned order. 11.1 It is also contended by the learned counsel that the Executing Court has not followed the mandatory provisions of Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure so also the provisions under Order XXI Rule 11(1) and Rule 11-A of CPC while passing the impugned order of issuance of arrest warrant against the petitioner/judgment debtor. Therefore, learned counsel contends that petitioner/ judgment debtor is put to severe hardship and difficulty. It is also stated by learned counsel that the respondents/decree holders have not made an application for arrest of the petitioner/judgment debtor before the Executing Court. Thereby, the Executing Court by issuance of the impugned order has infringed fundamental rights of the petitioner and also interfered with his life and liberty and therefore, the impugned order is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 11.2. On these grounds, learned counsel seeks to allow the petition setting aside the impugned order passed by the Executing Court as the same is arbitrary, illegal and perverse. 12. Per contra, learned counsel - Sri Sunil S Rao for respondents sustains the impugned order passed by the Executing Court by contending that the Execution Petition is filed on 27.09.2023 for recovery of Rs.96,79,140/-. The petitioner/judgment debtor has been protracting and prolonging the petition, thereby depriving the respondents/decree holders to enjoy the fruits of the decree. He contends that the petitioner/judgment debtor has been watching the proceedings before the Court and deliberately avoiding receipt of notice from the Court. The Executing proceedings and the suit proceedings are in the same Court. Because of absence of the petitioner/ judgment debtor, the Court has ordered issuance of the arrest warrant against the petitioner/judgment debtor, which is within the purview of the Court and therefore, he sustains the impugned order. The Executing proceedings and the suit proceedings are in the same Court. Because of absence of the petitioner/ judgment debtor, the Court has ordered issuance of the arrest warrant against the petitioner/judgment debtor, which is within the purview of the Court and therefore, he sustains the impugned order. 12.1 It is also contended that pursuant to the impugned order dated 13.6.2025, the petitioner/judgment debtor was arrested and thereafter, he has been released on bail by the Executing Court on execution of personal bond with one surety for the likesum. He has also undertaken to pay Rs.3,00,000/- by way of cheque and sought time to pay Rs.20,00,000/- on or before 5.7.2025. However, petitioner/judgment debtor has not complied any of these conditions. Therefore, it is the petitioner/ judgment debtor, who has violated the conditions imposed. 12.2 Learned counsel contends that the Execution petition is of the year 2023 and now, we are in 2025. He contends that the Executing Court has not proceeded further in view of the stay granted by this Court and the Executing Court may be directed to dispose of the Execution Petition as expeditiously as possible in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to dispose of the Execution Petitions within a period of six months. 12.3 On these grounds, learned counsel seeks to dismiss of the petition. 13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondents. 14. The fact with regard to filing of the suit by the petitioner/judgment debtor and the counter-claim by respondents/decree holders and the counter-claim being rejected by the trial Court, are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the execution petition filed by the respondents/decree holders is for a direction to the petitioner/judgment debtor to pay a sum of Rs.96,79,140/- in pursuance of the order dated 15.7.2023 in O.S. No.2408/2023 and secondly to attach the movables and immovables of the petitioner/judgment debtor as detailed in schedule - A and Schedule - B of the Execution Petition, in failure to pay the decretal amount of Rs.96,79,140/-. It is an admitted fact that there is no prayer made by the respondents/decree holders in the Execution Petition for arrest of the petitioner/judgment debtor. It is an admitted fact that there is no prayer made by the respondents/decree holders in the Execution Petition for arrest of the petitioner/judgment debtor. It is also seen that the respondents/decree holders have not filed any application accompanied by an affidavit stating the grounds for arrest of the petitioner/judgment debtor. 15. On perusal of the order sheet maintained by the Executing Court, it is noticed that when the matter came up before the Executing Court on 1.6.2024, the Court observed that before passing order on attachment of Schedule 'A' to 'E' properties, it is just and necessary to issue notice to the judgment debtor and accordingly issued notice to the judgment debtor. Thereafter, continuously it was posted with regard to issuance of notice and re- issuance of notice to the petitioner/judgment debtor. However, when the matter came up before the Executing Court on 13.6.2025, the Court took a drastic measure and issued arrest warrant against the judgment debtor, which reads as under: "The Dhr and his counsel absent. The Jdr and his counsel absent. Case passover. Case again called out at 1.30 p.m. The Dhr and his counsel absent. The Jdr and his counsel absent. Case passover. Case again called out at 2.00 p.m. Advocate for the Dhr present. Issue arrest warrant against the Jdr and issue direction to the PSI of concerned jurisdiction to assist the Bailiff while execute the arrest warrant against Jdr, if PF paid. Call on 04.07.2025." 16. On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the Executing Court has issued arrest warrant against the petitioner/ judgment debtor and also direction to the PSI of the concerned jurisdiction to assist the Bailiff to execute arrest warrant against the petitioner/judgment debtor. Accordingly, the petitioner/judgment debtor was arrested and produced before the Court on 2.7.2025 and on the same day, he was enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond with one surety for the likesum. The fact remains that without an application of the respondents/decree holders for arrest of the petitioner/judgment debtor, the Executing Court has issued arrest warrant against the petitioner/judgment debtor without following the procedure contemplated in Section 51 of CPC. 17. At this stage, it is relevant to extract Section 51 of the CPC, which reads as under: "51. The fact remains that without an application of the respondents/decree holders for arrest of the petitioner/judgment debtor, the Executing Court has issued arrest warrant against the petitioner/judgment debtor without following the procedure contemplated in Section 51 of CPC. 17. At this stage, it is relevant to extract Section 51 of the CPC, which reads as under: "51. Powers of Court to enforce execution— Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the Court may, on the application of the decree-holder, order execution of the decree— (a) by delivery of any property specifically decreed; (b) by attachment and sale or by the sale without attachment of any property; (c) by arrest and detention in prison [for such period not exceeding the period specified in section 58, where arrest and detention is permissible under that section]; (d) by appointing a receiver; or (e) in such other manner as the nature of the relief granted may require: Provided that, where the decree is for the payment of money, execution by detention in prison shall not be ordered unless, after giving the judgment-debtor an opportunity of showing cause why he should not be committed to prison, the Court, for reasons recorded in writing, is satisfied — (a) that the judgment-debtor, with the object or effect of obstructing or delaying the execution of the decree,— (i) is likely to abscond or leave the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, or (ii) has, after the institution of the suit in which the decree was passed, dishonestly transferred, concealed, or removed any part of his property, or committed any other act of bad faith in relation to his property, or (b) that the judgment-debtor has, or has had since the date of the decree, the means to pay the amount of the decree or some substantial part thereof and refuses or neglects or has refused or neglected to pay the same, or (c) that the decree is for a sum for which the judgment-debtor was bound in a fiduciary capacity to account. Explanation.—In the calculation of the means of the judgment-debtor for the purposes of clause (b), there shall be left out of account any property which, by or under any law or custom having the force of law for the time being in force, is exempt from attachment in execution of the decree." 18. Explanation.—In the calculation of the means of the judgment-debtor for the purposes of clause (b), there shall be left out of account any property which, by or under any law or custom having the force of law for the time being in force, is exempt from attachment in execution of the decree." 18. It is also useful to refer to the provisions of Order XXI Rule 11(1) and Order XXI Rule 11A of CPC, which read as under: 11. Oral application— (1) Where a decree is for the payment of money the Court may, on the oral application of the decree-holder at the time of passing of the decree, order immediate execution thereof by the arrest of the judgment-debtor, prior to the preparation of a warrant if he is within the precincts of the Court. [11A.Application for arrest to state grounds — Where an application is made for the arrest and detention in prison of the judgment-debtor, it shall state, or be accompanied by an affidavit stating, the grounds on which arrest is applied for] 19. On perusal of the above provisions, it is seen that Order XXI Rule 11(1) is not applicable in the present case as it deals with immediate arrest of the judgment debtor prior to the preparation of a warrant if he is within precincts of the Court, which is not a case of the respondents/decree holders. Further, Order XXI Rule 11A contemplates that where an application for arrest is made, respondents/ decree holders have to state the reasons and grounds for arrest by way of an affidavit accompanying the application. In the present case, admittedly no such application is made or even the affidavit stating the reasons for arrest of the petitioner/judgment debtor. Therefore, it is apparently clear without any ambiguity that the impugned order passed by the Executing Court is perverse, arbitrary and illegal and the Executing Court would have adverted to the regular process of attachment of the immovable properties, in view of non-appearance of the petitioner/judgment debtor, whereas the Executing Court adverted to the extreme measure of arrest without following the due process of law and without there being an application or the grounds made by the respondents/ judgment debtors. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 20. This Court is not inclined to deal with the other I.As. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 20. This Court is not inclined to deal with the other I.As. filed by the respondents/decree holders as they are at liberty to pursue the said I.As in the original suit proceedings or in the execution proceedings by following due process of law, for recovery of the amount. 21. Since the Execution Petition is of the year 2023, the same has to be decided expeditiously by the Executing Court in accordance with the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rahul S. Shah -vs- Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and others reported in (2021)6 SCC 418 . 22. For the reasons stated above, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 13.6.2025 passed by the LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Execution No.2553/2023, is hereby set aside. iii) The Executing Court is at liberty to proceed further strictly in accordance with law. iv) It is needless to mention that by way of allowing this petition and setting aside the impugned order dated 13.6.2025, the same will not preclude the respondents/decree holders from making an application under Order XXI Rule 11. If such an application is filed, the Executing Court shall deal with the same in accordance with law. v) The Executing Court shall first proceed for recovery of the amount by following the procedure under Section 51 of CPC and other provisions contained in Order XXI Rule 11 of CPC, before adverting to any drastic measures. vi) In view of this Court setting aside the impugned order dated 13.6.2025, the consequential orders subsequently passed with regard to arrest and execution of the personal bond, stand nullified.