Arun Kumar Goel, J. : Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their consent the matter is being finally disposed of.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has stated that for the purpose of present revision petition, the presence of respondents no.2 to 6 is not required. In these circumstances the matter is being taken up for final disposal in the absence of said respondents, who are neither necessary nor proper parties for the present revision petition.

3. Vide impugned order, petitioner No.2 Satya Parkash Sood who is sole v proprietor of petitioner No. 1 has been ordered to be sent to civil prison on the submissions of learned counsel for respondent-Bank that unless the petitioner is sent to civil prison, he will not deposit outstanding money from other benami sources. This prayer of respondent No. 1-Bank has been found to be just, fair and genuine and therefore in exercise of powers vested under Order 21 Rule 30 CPC, the petitioner was ordered to be detained in civil prison for which purpose warrant has been ordered to be issued by the trial court. It is against this part of the order that the petitioner is aggrieved and has filed the present revision petition.

4. Shri D D.Sud, submits that provisions of Order 21 Rule 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure are subject to the provisions of the Rule 37 of the said order as well as Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the other hand, Shri Ashwani Kumar Sharma pointed out that the order of detention of the petitioner is legal and valid and is in accordance with the provisions of law and same deserves to be upheld and in this behalf he has referred to provisions of Section 51 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

5. So far the power to detain a judgment debtor in civil prison is concerned, there can hardly be any dispute in that behalf. In a given situation court is empowered on the application of the decree holder for execution of the decree in one of the mode detailed in Section 51 (c) CPC. However, discretion rests with the executing court to issue show cause notice against Judgment debtor against his detention in prison under Order 21 Rule 37 CPC. It is not the case of respondent No-1 Bank that with an object or effect of delaying the execution of the decree, the petitioner-judgment debtor is likely to abscond or leave the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court. In these circumstances, it would have been appropriate as well as in accordance with the principles of fair play and justice that before ordering the arrest and detention of the petitioner-judgment debtor in civil prison for trial court to have issued show cause notice under Order 21 Rule 37(1) CPC of the Code or respondent No.l-Bank should have made out a case within the meaning of proviso of Order 21 rule 37 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. There was nothing on record brought by the respondent No.l Bank to show that petitioner No.2- judgment debtor had means to liquidate the decretal amount but is evading the payment thereof. There was also nothing pointed out by respondent No.l Bank that petitioner No.2 , is bad faith beyond more indifference to pay by some deliberate or recusant disposition in the past or alternatively, current means to pay the decretal amount or substantial part thereof. Further no cogent and reliable material has been brought on record by respondent No.l Bank to the effect that there was dis-honest act on the part of the petitioner No.2 culminating in his non payment of the decretal amount. So far details of petitioners properties are concerned, those are given in Annexure PA i.e. the affidavit filed by him under Order 21 Rule 41 (2) CPC. On this affidavit the submission made on behalf of respondent No.l-Bank is that it will not be possible to fetch outstanding decretal amount. On what basis this submission was made has not been spelt out by the Bank. It was stated on behalf of respondent No. 1 Bank that the petitioner has got other benami assets, what are thos