BALAKRISHNAN Vs. NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A question of some importance is raised in this revision petition. Though arrest and detention of the judgment debtor is a mode of enforcing execution of a decree for payment of money there are restrictions placed on the power of arrest and detention by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. By the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure effected in 1976 the right to arrest and detain the judgment debtor has been restricted by limiting the period for which detention is permissible S.51(c) relates such period to that specified in S.58 of the Code. Where the decree is for payment of a sum of money exceeding one thousand rupees the detention cannot exceed 3 months and where the decree is for payment of money exceeding Rs. 500/- but not exceeding Rs. 1,000/- the detention is to be for a period not exceeding 6 weeks. Naturally the question would arise what would be the period of detention when the decree is for payment of an amount below Rs. 500/-. Perhaps it may be argued that in the absence of a provision as to a specified maximum period in regard to such sum it is unlimited. That would be plainly unreasonable, for, the lesser the sum the period of detention cannot be limitless. It is to remove this doubt that provision is made in sub-s.(1A) to S.58 that "no order for detention of the judgment debtor in civil prison in execution of a decree for the payment of money shall be made where the total amount of the decree does not exceed five hundred rupees". It means that if the decree amount does not exceed Rs. 500/- there is no scope for detention in civil prison at all for any period.

(2.) In the case before me the judgment debtor is called upon to pay costs of the litigation which is below Rs. 500/-. He was sought to be arrested He based his defence to such arrest under S.58(1A) of the Code. This plea has not been accepted by the court below which embarked upon a discussion of the philosophy underlying the award of costs. The learned Munsiff who passed the order noticed that the object of awarding costs is to secure to a litigant the expenses incurred by him in the litigation and not to enable him to make anything by way of gain or profit It was therefore assumed by the learned Munsiff that the provision for payment of costs in a decree is not to be construed as a provision under a decree for payment of money as contemplated by S.58(1A) of the Code.

(3.) A decree for costs is executable just as any decree for payment of money. Money is payable under a decree when the court awards costs under the decree. If the amount decreed as costs is not paid by the person who is made liable to pay it under the decree it could be recovered by execution of the decree. A person on whom the liability to pay such costs is imposed would be the judgment debtor and the person to whom the costs is payable under the decree would be the decree holder within the meaning of these terms in the Code. In short costs is recoverable by execution of a decree just as any other amount payable under decree could be recovered. It is so recoverable because it is an amount payable under the decree. If money is payable under a decree the decree is necessarily one for payment of money.