What is the correct approach under Section 51 CPC for arresting a judgment debtor when the decree is for money and the debtor claims no means to pay? What constitutes sufficient proof of "means to pay" to justify arrest of a judgment debtor under Order 21 Rule 37 CPC and Section 51 CPC? What are the consequences of proceeding against a single guarantor when other liable debtors exist, and is it permissible to arrest only one guarantor?

Key Points: - The decree-holder must establish to the satisfaction of the court that the judgment-debtor has means to pay and is refusing or neglecting to pay (!) . - The impugned order was set aside for presuming means and placing burden on the debtor to disprove without adequate evidence (!) . - The court emphasized that evidence must show the debtor owns means or property; mere allegation without documentary/overt evidence is insufficient (!) . - It is permissible for decree-holders to proceed against any judgment-debtor, including guarantors, but not to rely on unsubstantiated assertions about a debtor’s means (!) . - The decision affirmed that arrest/detention in prison as a mode of execution requires written reasons and proof of means since the decree is for money (!) . - The revision petition succeeded, and the impugned order arresting the 2nd judgment-debtor was unsustainable (!) . - The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, setting aside the order of arrest; no order as to costs (!) .

What is the correct approach under Section 51 CPC for arresting a judgment debtor when the decree is for money and the debtor claims no means to pay?

What constitutes sufficient proof of "means to pay" to justify arrest of a judgment debtor under Order 21 Rule 37 CPC and Section 51 CPC?

What are the consequences of proceeding against a single guarantor when other liable debtors exist, and is it permissible to arrest only one guarantor?