085-NLR-NLR-V-03-SUPPRAMANIAN-CHETTY-et-al-v.-CURERA-et-al.pdf
( 193 )
SUPPRAMANIAN CHETTY et al. v. CURERA et al.
Writ of execution—Arrest of debtor—Commitment to jail—Refusal ofjailer to receive prisoner for want of maintenance money—Offer ofprisoner to return next day to Court, if released—Order of District. Judge made at his house—Re-arrest of debtor on subsequent day—Re-committal to jail—Validity of such orders.
C, having been arrested on a writ of execution and committed,was refused admittance to prison, and was thereupon taken to theDistrict Judge at his house. C then voluntarily offered to appearin Court the next day and was allowed to go, no order of dischargehaving been made.
Held, that C’s re-arrest and commitment to jail on a subsequentday was legal.
A District Judge cannot act judicially except in Court, and anorder of discharge made at his house is liable to be set aside asinvalid.
TN execution of a decree passed against the thr.ee defendants-1- in this case the third defendant was arrested and broughtbefore the District Court. On the 22nd November the DistrictJudge ordered his committal and directed the plaintiff to deposit asum of Rs. 30 for his maintenance in jail. The defendant and theVot. ]H.12(56)29.
1898.
January 17.
(194 )
1898. warrant of committal were taken to the jail without an acknowledg-January 17. ment under the hand of the Fiscal of the receipt.of the money forthe maintenance of the defendant. The jailer refused to takecharge of the defendant. As it was past 6 p.m. the peon took thedefendant to the District Judge’s house, and upon the defendantvoluntarily offering to appear before him the following day inCourt the District Judge let him go.
He did not appear on the following day, and the DistrictJudge issued a warrant for his re-arrest, on the motion of theDeputy Fiscal. On the 26th November the defendant wasarrested, and on being produced the Court ordered his commit-ment to jail on a fresh committal.
Defendant appealed against the orders of the 22nd and 26thNovember.
Jayaivardana, for third defendant.
Domhorst, for respondent.
17th January, 1898. Lawrie, J.—
The District Judge committed this appellant to jail when hewas brought before him on a civil warrant of arrest.
In the evening, after the Judge had left the Court-house, theFiscal’s peon brought the appellant to the Judge’s house andreported that the jailer refused to receive the debtor becausesubsistence money had not been deposited. In a recent casethis Court decided that a District Judge could not act judiciallyexcept in Court, and it set aside a discharge made by the DistrictJudge at his own house. Here the District Judge did notdischarge the debtor. He was allowed to go away promisingto return next day, which he failed to do. As there was nodischarge, the debtor’s re-arrest was lawful, and his presentincarceration is, in my opinion, legal.
Withers, J.—
In my opinion the judgment-debtor in this case is liable to bearrested a second time, because he had not been discharged fromcustody under the first warrant by an order of the Judge of theCourt in which the warrant of arrest was taken out.