M.R. Verma, J.—This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 25.6.1999 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Hamirpur in Execution Petition No. 33/1994 titled Punjab National Bank v. M/s. Soni Steel Metal Industries and others, whereby the petitioner/JD has been ordered to be detained in civil prison for non-payment of the decretal amount after rejecting the application moved by him for vacating the ex-parte order dated 18.1.1999.

2. The material facts relevant for determination of the present controversy are that the respondent/ DH Punjab National Bank filed an application for execution of decree dated 5.9.1993 the petitioner-JD and respondents-JDs for realising the decretal amount of Rs. 1,30,096. A perusal of the record reveals that some movable properties of the JDs have been attached. On 18.1.1999 the learned Senior Sub Judge proceeded to pass the following order : "Heard. Let warrant of sale be issued to the Naib Tehsildar Bhoranj in respect of the attached movable property in the following manner :— Proclamation at the spot on 18.2.1999. Sale at the spot on 18.3.1999, On taking steps and report be called for 26.3.1999. Since the recovery of about Rs. 2,00000/- is involved in this execution which as per statement of Shri J.C. Sharma cannot be recovered from the sale of movable property. Shri Sharma submits at the bar that J.D. No, 1 has disposed of his entire property and as such, he prays that warrant of arrest be issued against him. Heard. Allowed. Issue warrant of arrest against J.D. No. 1 on taking steps returnable for 26.3.1999."

3. On 6.4.1999 petitioner/JD moved an application under Order 21 Rule 106 read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte order of detention of the petitioner-JD in civil prison. The said application however was dismissed by the learned Senior Sub Judge by the impugned order with the observations that the petitioner-JD is a principal debtor who has failed to pay the amount of decree passed against him and who is also evading his arrest and that there was no force in his application. Hence, the present revision petition.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant papers placed on the record.

5. Arrest and detention of a JD in execution of a decree is a lawful mode of executing a decree by virtue of the provisions of Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure even in a decree for payment of money. However, such arrest and detention will be regulated by the provisions as contained in the proviso to Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure which reads as follows :—

51. Powers of Court to enforce execution : Provided that, where the decree is for the payment of money, execution by detention in prison shall not be ordered unless, after giving the judgment-debtor an opportunity of showing cause why he should not be committed to prison, the Court, for reasons recorded in writing, is satisfied— (a) that the judgment-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 jurisdiction 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 property, or committed any other act of bad faith in relation to his property, or (b) that the judgment-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 judgment-debtor was bound in a fiduciary capacity to account. Explanation.—In the calculation of the means of the judgment-debtor for the purposes of clause (b), there shall be left out of account any property which, by or under any law or custom having the force of law for the time being in force, is exempt from attachment in execution of the decree."

6. O