SOUNDARARAJAN Vs. SAYEE FINANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of the learned District Munsif of Erode, ordering arrest of the judgment-debtor revision petitioner.

(2.) In execution of the decree in O.S.No.172 of 1981, the respondent-decree-holder filed an execution petition for arrest of the revision petitioner herein. The learned District Munsif passed the following laconic order: No counter filed, Respondent called absent and set ex parte. Means proved. Arrest by 17th March, 1984.

(3.) One of the contentions taken by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that the learned District Munsif has not followed the rules prescribed under Order 21, rule 40, CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. He invited my attention to the proviso to section 51(b), CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 and stated that the Court has to see whether the judgment-debtor has or had since the date of decree the means to pay the amount of decree or some substantial part thereof and refused, and having not stated so, the order passed by the learned District Munsif is not sustainable. This contention of the learned Counsel is wrong. A perusal of section 51 shows that there are two stages in the process of execution of a decree so far as section 51(c) is concerned. These are (1) arrest, and (2) detention in civil prison. A careful reading of the proviso would show that it refers only to execution by detention in prison and that the court must be satisfied with the conditions enumerated therein only when an order for detention in civil prison is made by the Court. The inhibition contained in section 51 is not applicable while ordering arrest of the judgment-debtor.