1. The writ petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.389 of 2003 in O.S.No.1596 of 1994 on the file of the Munsiff, Chavakkad. The respondent obtained a money decree as against the petitioner. To execute the decree, Ext.P1 execution petition was filed before the execution court. The prayer in Ext.P1 is for arrest and detention of the petitioner in civil prison.

2. The petitioner took up a contention that he has no means to pay the decree debt. The respondent, on the other hand, to prove the means of the petitioner, produced Ext.P2, an order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Form, Thrissur in O.P.No.173 of 2002. No other evidence was let in. The execution court passed Ext.P3 order whereby presuming from Ext.P2 it was found that the petitioner has got sufficient means. Assailing Ext.P3, this writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. The relevant portion of Ext.P3 reads as follows:

“Heard both sides, This is an E.P. filed by the decree holder in order to realize the E.P. amount. Judgment debtor after application filed. Counter statement stating that judgment debtor has no means to pay the decree amount. In order to prove the means of judgment debtor the decree holder produced Ext.A1 document. No contra evidence adduced by the judgment debtor. On perusal of Ext.A1 document it is seen that judgment debtor is the managing director of the company. No contra evidence adduced by judgment debtor to discredit Ext.A1 document. Hence, on perusal of Ext.A1 document I find that judgment debtor has sufficient means to pay the decree debt. Hence, E.P. can be proceeded with. For payment - 31.7.2006.”

4. Ext.P3 would show that in fact the respondent had not adduced any evidence regarding the means of the petitioner. It is argued that Ext.P2 would show that the petitioner is the Director of a company and hence his means can be inferred. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the company was closed and in fact the petitioner is devoid of means to pay the decree debt. Ext.P3 order itself would show that there was no proper enquiry conducted by the execution court before arriving a finding regarding the means of the petitioner herein. The mere fact that the petitioner is the managing director of a company at one point of time, would not mean that he continues to be so as on the date of execution or that it would amount to an evidence that the petitioner has got sufficient means, but he refuses to pay. Even if it is assumed that he is the managing director of company, as to what is his income seems to be a mystery. Presumption regarding sufficient means of the petitioner from the fact that he is the managing director of a company is not at all justified. When a money decree is sought to be executed by arrest and detention of the judgment debtor in civil prison, it is the burden of the decree holder to establish that the decree holder has got the means to pay the decree debt and that despite the means, he failed to discharge the decree. Before proceeding further on the execution petition for realization of money, where the prayer is for arrest and detention in civil prison; and where the judgment debtor had denied his means to pay, it is for the court to satisfy that the judgment debtor has means to pay and still he refuses or neglects to honour the decree and in case detention is ordered, the court shall record reasons. That is the mandate of clause (b) to the proviso to Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Sending a judgment debtor, who has no means, to civil prison would tantamount to blatant violation of the high value of human dignity and the worth of the human person embodied in Article 21 read with Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. Execution court should bear in mind that mere omission to pay the decree debt shall not result in arrest or detention of a judgment debtor in civil prison. While exercising the authority of the court in execution of