Honble SINGHAL, J.—Since a common question of law and similar facts are involved in the above three revision petitions, they are disposed of by this common order.

(2). The dispute relates to the order passed by the Executing Court on 24.01.1992. An objection with regard to limitation was raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. After hearing the parties, the delay is condoned and the revisions are being considered to be within time.

(3). The grievance raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Executing Court has no jurisdiction to send the Chairman and Managing Director, who were not the parties before the trial court, for civil imprisonment in execution of the decree. Learned counsel for the petitioner as referred to the provisions of Sections 51,55 and 58 of the Civil Procedure Code, besides the provisions of O.21, R. 37.

(4). The procedure for execution has been provided under Sec. 51 CPC which is as under:

"51. Powers of Court to enforce execution: 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) by delivery of any property specifically decreed;

(b) by attachment and sale or by sale without attachment of any property;

(c) be 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) by appointing a receiver; or

(e) in such other manner as the nature of the relief granted may require:

Provided that, where the decree is for payment of money, execution by detention in prison shall not be ordered unless after giving the judgement debtor an opportunity showing a cause why he should not be committed to prison, the court, for reasons recorded in writing, is satisfied —

(a) that the judgement 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 juris diction 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 properly, or committed any other act of bad faith in relation to his property; or

(b) that the judgement 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 judgement debtor was found in a fiduciary capacity to account."

(5). From the above provision it is evident that the detention in prison could be in respect of a decree for payment of money. Clause (e) of the above section provides that the execution could be in such other manner as the nature of the relief granted may require, would not cover the execution by way of arrest or detention in prison unless it has specifically been provided so.

(6). Section 55 provides for arrest and detention of a judgement debtor, whereas the judgment debtor may be arrested in execution of a decree but that also in its application refers to a money decree, inasmuch as it has been provided that if a judgment-debtor expresses his intention to apply to be declared as insolvent . . . in sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 55, the intention could be that it is on account of non-payment of money for which decree has been awarded and a judgement debtor could be arrested and sent to civil imprisonment. Section 58 provides as under:—

"58. Detention and release- Every person detained in the civil prison in execution of a decree shall be so detained, -

(a) where the decree is for the payment of a sum of money exceeding one thousand rupees, for a period not exceeding three months, and

(b) where the decree is for payment of a sum of money exceeding five, hundred rupees, for a period not exceeding six weeks:

Provided that he shall be released from such detention before the expiration of the said period of detention

Click Here to Read the rest of this document