By this petition, the petitioner has assailed correctness and validity of order dated 28/02/2008, by which, the Trial Court has directed the petitioner to be arrested and sent to Civil Jail in the matter of execution of money decree passed in favour of the respondent.

2. The respondent filed a suit against the petitioner herein, claiming a money decree which was eventually allowed and a money decree of Rs.6,47,000/- along with interest @ 6% was passed. The respondent, then sought execution of decree by instituting execution proceedings before the Executing Court. Initially, the petitioner/judgment debtor submitted an application on 24/07/2005 stating that as he has got a valuable property, he would be paying decretal amount. But later on, he did not pay. The Court, then, proceeded to pass an order of attachment of the petitioner's property. The order of attachment was however, challenged by filing a petition by petitioner's son – Gopal Agrawal in WPC No. 6384/2006 wherein, an interim order was passed by this Court on 22/11/2006 staying the execution proceedings.

3. As the money decree could not be satisfied by the petitioner, the respondent/decree holder moved an application under Section 51 and Order 21 Rule 37 read with Section 151 CPC for effecting arrest of the petitioner/judgment debtor. On such application moved, the learned Executing Court issued notice for appearance of the petitioner and thereafter, the impugned order was passed on the reasons that the petitioner/judgment debtor having sufficient means, is deliberately, in bad faith, not satisfying the money decree.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, by this petition, seeks to invoke supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the submission that the learned Executing Court has exceeded its jurisdiction vested under the law by directing the petitioner to be sent to Civil Prison, even though there was no material available with the Executing Court to arrive at such satisfaction that the petitioner, though possessed of sufficient means, has neglected or acted in bad faith to satisfy with money decree. He would submit that the only operative reason behind passing of impugned order is that the petitioner is possessed of sufficient property. It is contended that the learned Court below omitted to consider that the property was under dispute with the petitioner's own son, who had challenged the order of attachment before this Court and this Court also stayed execution proceedings. The petitioner's son claiming his interest in the property, had also filed partition suit. Amidst, these litigations, only on the ground that the petitioner also had interest in the property, without anything more, could not be made a basis to arrive at the conclusion that with that property alone, the petitioner was possessed of sufficient means to satisfy the money decree. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the arrest in execution of judgment and decree is a serious matter as it affects the personal liberty. Therefore, before incarceration of personal liberty, though in fulfillment of the civil liability, to effect arrest and sending a person in civil prison, recording of satisfaction must receive strict consideration. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jolly George Varghese and anr. v. The Bank of Cochin, 1980 (2) SCC 360 and decision of Madras High Court in the case of K. Vijayan v. K.G. Kuppusamy and ors., 2006 3 MLJ 759.

5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that in the totality of circumstances, relevant in nature, taken note by learned Executing Court, are not only sufficient but relevant to exercise discretion in the matter for sending the petitioner to civil prison. It is submitted that the learned Court below took into consideration that on 07/05/2005, the judgment debtor had submi