P. VENKATARAMA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order in E. P. directing arrest of the judgment-debtor.

( 2 ) IN O. S. No. 143 of 1982 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Narsapur, a money decree was passed against the petitioner herein. Against that decree, A. S. No. 956 of 1993 was filed by the petitioner. This Court granted conditional stay on 19-4-1993. The petitioner failed to deposit half the decretal amount as stipulated in the interim order of this Court. Thus the stay order became inoperative and the decree is liable to be executed. It appears that the petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court against the order passed in the C. M. P. It is not known whether the Special Leave Petition has been disposed of or not.

( 3 ) WHILE so, the respondent-decree holder filed E. P. No. 46 of 1992 on 23-11-1992 requesting the Court to issue notice under Order XXI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thereafter to issue arrest warrant. Notice was ordered by the Court. The petitioner filed a counter stating that a Special Leave Petition was filed in the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court and that he was prepared to give adequate personal or third party security for the decretal amount till the disposal of the matter in the Supreme Court. He also stated that he was prepared to deposit half of the decretal amount in case the Supreme Court refuses to grant stay. On 16-9-1993, the learned Subordinate Judge passed a cryptic order which reads as follows: "arrest the judgment debtor on payment of process by 9-11-1993. "

( 4 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge has not given any reasons for directing arrest of the judgment debtor nor did he conduct an equity in terms of Order XXI Rule 40. Having regard to the fact that the judgment-debtor appeared before the Court in obedience to the notice issued under Rule 37, it was incumbent on the part of the executing Court to hear the decree-holder and after recording evidence, if any, adduced by him, the Court should have given the Judgment-debtor an opportunity of showing cause as to why he should not be committed to civil prison. Under Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court shall have to record reasons for committing the judgment-debtor to prison. The Court has to record satisfaction as to the applicability of Clause (a), (b) or (c) of Section 51. Of course, in this case, the relevant clause applicable is Clause (b ). Though prima fade, mere is no dispute as to the means of the petitioner, the Court has to record a finding that the judgment-debtor has refused or neglected to pay the decretal amount. Ofcourse, the executing Court, pending the conclusion of the enquiry under sub-rule (1) of Rule 40 may order the judgment debtor to be detained in the custody of the officer of the Court or release him on his furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Court for his appearance when required. Evidently, mis power has notbeen exercised by the Court nor order of arrest was directed under sub-rule (2) of Order XXI Rule 37, because the said sub-rule has no application here. Above all, no reasons whatsoever have been recorded for directing the arrest of the judgment-debtor. It is not mentioned under what provision the arrest is directed. No reference was made to the stand taken by the Judgment-debtor in the counter. The order of arrest cannot, therefore, stand a moment s scrutiny. Before passing orders of drastic nature having effect on the personal liberty of the party, the lower Court should have atleast passed a brief reasoned order. For all these reasons, I have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order of arrest.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that the stay of the order directingarrest would impede the recovery of the decretal amount which, under the terms of the order passed by this Court, ought to have been paid by the petitioner. It is submitted that by obtaining stay of arrest

Click Here to Read the rest of this document