WAHENGBAM MENJOR SINGH Vs. ADWETA DEBOTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first judgment -debtor in Execution Case No. 14 of 1971 on the file of the Munsiff, Bishenpur, has filed this revision petition against the order of the Munsiff dated 3 -12 -1971 directing the issue of a warrant for his arrest in execution of the money decree passed in O.S. No. 15 of 1968 of the Court of the then Munsiff No. 5 of Manipur. For proper appreciation of the law points urged by the learned counsel, the facts leading to the present revision petition may be briefly stated here.

(2.) THE decree -holder -opposite party filed an application for execution on 4 -9 -1971 praying for execution of the decree by arrest and detention of the Judgment -debtor in civil prison. The learned Munsiff issued a notice to the judgment -debtor under Order XXI, Rule 37. Civil P. C. to show cause as to why the decree should not be executed in the manner as prayed for. On receipt of this notice the judgment -debtor appeared and showed cause. The cause shown by him was, however, beside the points and not actually an answer to a notice under Order XXI Rule 37. Civil P. C. The learned Munsiff on perusal of the cause shown by the judgment -debtor rejected his objection as frivolous and by his order dated 24 -11 -71. without, making any enquiry as contemplated under Rule 40 of Order XXI, he decided to proceed with the execution case and directed the decree -holder to take necessary steps. After this the decree -holder deposited the necessary costs and diet money for one month upon which the learned Munsiff ordered for issue of a warrant for the arrest of the judgment -debtor, by his order dated 3 -12 -1971, which is the impugned order.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the decree -holder -opposite party, Shri Priyananda Singh, contends that the impugned order is appealable and hence the revision petition is not maintainable. He further contends that if the revision petition is held to be maintainable, the order complained of is simply for the arrest of the petitioner and not for his detention in civil prison in execution of the decree, and as such the provisions of Section 51 are inapplicable in the present case. According to him, the arrest and detention in civil prison represent two different and distinct stages in the process of execution of a decree, and that Section 51 comes into play only when the order of detention is to be passed.