The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Executing Court to follow the specified procedure, record its satisfaction, and provide reasons for ordering arrest and detention, as mandated by Order 21, Rule 37(1) and Section 51 of the Code.

1. This Revision filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, is directed against the order made in E.P. No.92 of 2004 is A.C. No.5 of 2000, dated 3.9.2005 on the file of IV Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.

2. The Respondent herein filed the Execution Petition under Order 21, Rule 37, C.P.C. for arrest and detention of the Petitioners to recover the decree amount in Arbitration Case No. 5 of 2000, awarded, by decree dated 26.8.2000.

3. The Petitioners resisted the Execution Petition contending that the Registrar of Chits without conducting any enquiry and without affording any opportunity, passed the decree. It is further contended the after the decree was passed, the Respondent gave the Title Deed and Promisory Note signed by the Petitioner and his wife to one Mr. Palanisamy, who has filed a Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by using the blank signed papers and the said Suit is pending and at this stage, the Respondent has filed the Execution Petition only with an intention to harass the Petitioners. The Executing Court, by order dated 30.9.2005, directed the arrest and detention of the Petitioners solely on the ground that the First Petitioner is receiving monthly pension and he has not been declared as an insolvent and unless an order of arrest is passed, the Petitioner would not pay the decree amount and therefore, ordered arrest.

4. In support of the contention, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Jolly George Varghese and another versus The Bank of Cochin, AIR 1999 SC 470 and Ram Narayan Agarwal, etc. versus State of U.P. and others, 1983 (4) SCC 276; AIR 1984 SC 1213.

5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and in spite of service of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of the Respondents.

6. The only legal issue which arises for consideration is whether the procedure required to be followed by the Executing Court while ordering arrest and detention of the judgment-debtors was followed by the Executing Court in the instant case. This Court had an occasion to consider the procedure required to be followed while considering an Application under Order 21, Rule 37(1), CPC in M.M. Saleem versus R. Praveen Kumar Reddy, 2010(5) CTC 469 and held as follows:

“5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and given my anxious consideration to the issue raised in the present Revision. Order 21, Rule 37(1) provides that where an Application is for execution of a money decree by the arrest and detention in Civil prison, the Court instead of issuing a warrant of arrest to the judgment-debtor, issue a notice calling upon him to appear before the Court on a day to be specified in the notice and show cause why he should not be committed to civil prison. In terms of Proviso to Rule 37(1) such notice shall not be necessary if the Court is satisfied, by Affidavit, or otherwise that, with the object or effect of delaying the execution of the decree, the judgment-debtor is likely to abscond or leave the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. Rule 40 states, when a judgment-debtor appears before the Court in obedience to a notice issued under Rule 37, or is brought before the Court after being arrested in execution of a money decree, Court shall proceed to hear the decree holder and take all such evidence and then give an opportunity to the judgment-debtor to show cause why he should not be committed to the Civil prison. Section 51 of the Code states that before an order or arrest and detention in prison is made, the Court should give an opportunity to the judgment-debtor for showing cause as to why he should not be committed to prison for reasons to be recorded in writing is satisfied of any of the requirements prescribed in clauses (a), (b) or (c) of the proviso. This Court in Namachivaya Mudaliar versus Manickavelu and Co., AIR 1972 Mad.292, held that after reading Section 51 of Rul