( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 11-11-1991 passed in E. P. No. 124/90 in O. S. No. 15/87 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, tenali.

( 2 ) THE revision petitioners are the judgment-debtors 2 to 5 and the respondent herein is the decree-holder in E. P. No. 124/90. In execution of the decree in O. S. No. 15/87, the respondent filed E. P. No. 124/90 for arrest of the judgment-debtors after issuing notices under Order 21 Rule 37 C. P. C. The notice under Order 21 Rule 37 C. P. C. was issued to the judgment-debtors 2 to 5, but they did not appear in Court in pursuance to the said notice on 11-11-1991. Hence, they were set ex parts and arrest of the judgment-debtors 2 to 5 was ordered. Assailing that order, the judgment-debtors have come up with this revision petition.

( 3 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the respondent, and perused the lower Court order.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order directing the arrest of the judgment-debtors is violative of both the letter and spirt of Section 51 and Order 21 Rule 37 C. P. C. and the learned Subordinate judge has not given any reasons for directing the arrest of the judgment- debtors. The learned Counsel for the respondent-decree-holder relying on the decision in "k. N. Gangappa and another vs. A. M. Subramaniyam Mudaliar contends the inhibition contained in Section 51 proviso applies only to an order for detention in prison and not to an order for. arrest of a judgment-debtor.

( 5 ) ON 11-11-1991, the learned Subordinate Judge passed a cryptic order which reads as follows:"j. D. 2 to J. D. 5 are called absent and set ex parte. Arrest J. D. 2 to J. D. 5 by 29-11-1991. "the learned Subordinate Judge has not given any reasons for directing arrest of the judgment-debtors. The crucial question to be considered in this revision petition is whether the order of arrest of the petitioners for the purpose of committing them in civil prison as ordered by the lower Court in execution of (the decree for) payment of money is in consonance with the provisions of Section 51 of C. P. C. which reads as follows:"subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the court may, on the application of the decree-holder, order execution of the decree (a) (b) (c) by arrest and detention in prison for such period not exceeding the period specified in Section 58 where arrest and detention is permissible under that Section; (d) (e) provided that where the decree is for the payment of money, execution by detention in prison shall not be ordered unless, after giving the judgment-debtor an opportunity of showing cause why he should not be committed to prison, the Court, for reasons recorded in writing, is. satisfied (a) that the judgment-debtor, with the object or effect of obstructing or delaying the execution of the decree (i) is likely to abscond or leave the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, or (ii) has, after the institution of the suit in which the decree was passed, dishonestly transferred, concealed or removed any part of his property, or committed any other act of bad faith in relation to his property; or (b) that the judgment-debtor has, or has had since the date of the decree, the means to pay the amount of the decree or some substantial part thereof and refuses or neglects or has refused or neglected to pay the same, or (c) that the decree is for a sum for which the judgment-debtor was bound in a fiduciary capacity to account. Explanation;- In the calculation of the means of the judgment-debtor for the purposes of clause (b), there shall be left out of account any property which, by or under any law or custom having the force of law for the time being in force, is exempt from attachment in execution of the decree. "a reading of the provisions of the above Section makes it clear that the arrest and detention of a J. Dr. in civil prison in execution of a decree for paym