1. Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the Shahdara Execution Court’s order issuing arrest warrants against a judgment debtor who repeatedly evaded execution proceedings. The Court held that territorial jurisdiction in execution is determined based on the address disclosed at the time of institution, and a judgment debtor cannot defeat lawful proceedings by later shifting residence.
The Court found no merit in the debtor’s objection that his current residence fell under a different district. It affirmed that the execution court correctly exercised jurisdiction and was justified in issuing arrest warrants when the debtor stopped appearing and stopped making payments after a settlement.
The petition was dismissed with ₹10,000 costs, to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) within one week.
2. Facts
The execution proceedings stemmed from a decree against the petitioner (judgment debtor). When the decree-holder initiated execution before the Shahdara District Court, the judgment debtor’s address was shown as Jhilmil Colony, which lies within the territorial jurisdiction of Shahdara.
During the execution, the parties entered into a settlement, and the petitioner made partial payments. After some time, he stopped making further payments and also stopped appearing before the execution court. Consequently, arrest warrants were issued, but they returned unexecuted as the petitioner remained unavailable.
The petitioner then claimed that he had shifted to Karawal Nagar, falling under the North-East District, and therefore the Shahdara Execution Court had no territorial jurisdiction. He challenged the issuance of arrest warrants and the rejection of his jurisdictional objection by filing the present petition under Article 227.
Counsel informed the High Court that even fresh arrest warrants had been issued and made returnable on 6 December 2025.
3. Issues
The High Court addressed two key questions:
- Whether the execution court at Shahdara had territorial jurisdiction merely because the judgment debtor later shifted residence.
- Whether issuing arrest warrants was justified in the circumstances of non-appearance and failure to honour settlement payments.
4. Petitioner’s arguments
The petitioner argued that the Shahdara Execution Court lacked jurisdiction because he now resided in Karawal Nagar, which falls outside Shahdara’s jurisdiction. He contended that execution proceedings must be transferred to the district where he currently resides.
Apart from the jurisdictional objection, no other substantive challenge was raised. The petitioner asked the High Court to set aside the arrest warrants on the premise that the court that issued them lacked territorial authority.
5. Respondent’s arguments
No one appeared for the respondent during the hearing. However, the High Court relied on the record and the execution court’s findings, which noted:
• The debtor’s original address at the time of institution was Jhilmil Colony.
• The settlement between the parties took place before the same court.
• Partial payments were made before the same court.
• The debtor subsequently stopped appearing and was avoiding execution.
The execution court concluded that the debtor was intentionally evading process, and the High Court adopted that reasoning.
6. Analysis of the law
The Court reaffirmed a basic but critical execution principle:
Territorial jurisdiction in execution depends on the judgment debtor’s address at the time the execution petition is filed—not on subsequent changes of residence.
This principle ensures that judgment debtors cannot frustrate execution by shifting addresses or creating jurisdictional hurdles after proceedings begin.
The Court found that:
• At the time of filing, the judgment debtor admitted his address as Jhilmil Colony.
• The execution petition, settlement, and initial conduct all occurred within the jurisdiction of the Shahdara Execution Court.
• The later shift to Karawal Nagar was irrelevant.
Regarding arrest warrants, the Court held that persistent non-appearance, evasion, and failure to comply with settlement terms justified issuance of coercive measures under the Code of Civil Procedure. Execution courts are empowered to act firmly when a judgment debtor evades process.
The Court noted that the debtor’s conduct supported the execution court’s finding that he was intentionally avoiding the legal process, making arrest warrants an appropriate and proportionate step.
7. Precedent analysis
Although this brief order does not cite multiple authorities, it applies core civil procedure principles that have been repeatedly affirmed:
Territorial jurisdiction in execution fixed at filing:
Execution courts determine jurisdiction based on the address disclosed at the time proceedings begin. This aligns with consistent jurisprudence preventing forum-shopping and evasion.
Evasion of execution invites coercive steps:
Courts have established that where judgment debtors evade warrants, obstruct execution, or fail to comply with settlement terms, arrest warrants may be issued under Order XXI CPC.
Costs as sanction:
By imposing ₹10,000 costs, the High Court reinforced that frivolous objections or obstructive execution conduct invite financial consequences.
The Court also directed the execution court to be informed immediately for enforcing the costs.
8. Court’s reasoning
The High Court noted that:
• The objection to territorial jurisdiction was “meritless on its face.”
• The debtor’s address at the time of institution determines jurisdiction—and that address was in Jhilmil Colony.
• The debtor had participated in settlement before the same court and paid part amounts without any jurisdictional objection at that stage.
• His later contention appeared to be a tactic to frustrate execution.
• The execution court had correctly inferred that he was evading process.
• Therefore, no notice needed to be issued by the High Court; the petition could be dismissed at the threshold.
The Court found the execution court’s reasoning sound and upheld the arrest warrants.
9. Conclusion
The petition was dismissed with costs of ₹10,000, payable within one week to DHCLSC. The High Court upheld the execution court’s arrest warrants and its finding that the judgment debtor was avoiding the legal process. It reiterated that jurisdictional objections based on shifting residences cannot undo valid execution proceedings instituted in a competent court.
10. Implications
This judgment strengthens execution jurisprudence by making clear that judgment debtors cannot derail recovery by shifting addresses after execution commences. It sends a strong message against evasion and dilatory tactics and affirms courts’ authority to issue arrest warrants when a party repeatedly avoids appearances.
It also underscores the importance of cost sanctions to deter frivolous objections and maintain discipline in execution proceedings.
Case Law References
(As derived from principles applied in the judgment)
Territorial jurisdiction fixed at filing: Courts have consistently held that jurisdiction in execution is determined by the address pleaded in the execution petition; later events do not divest jurisdiction. Applied directly in this case.
Evasion justifies arrest warrants: Execution courts may issue arrest warrants where the judgment debtor repeatedly avoids appearance or defaults on undertakings.
Costs as enforcement tool: Consistent with CPC philosophy that unjustified objections may attract compensatory costs.
FAQs
1. Can a judgment debtor escape execution by changing residence after proceedings begin?
No. The High Court confirmed that territorial jurisdiction is determined at the time of filing. Later shifts in residence do not affect jurisdiction.
2. When can arrest warrants be issued in execution proceedings?
Arrest warrants may be issued when the judgment debtor repeatedly avoids court, defaults on settlement payments, or obstructs execution.
3. Can territorial jurisdiction be challenged after participating in settlement proceedings?
Such objections usually fail. Participation and partial payments before the same court show acceptance of jurisdiction.
