The central legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement of recording findings regarding the judgment debtor's liability to be committed to civil prison and the corresponding mitigating right conferred in favor of the judgment debtor under the Code of Civil Procedure.

1. The Judgment debtor against whom the Executing Court has passed an order directing his arrest for detention in civil prison is the petitioner in the present revision filed against the said order of the executing Court. The respondent herein is the decree holder.

2. An ex parte decree was obtained by the respondent herein against the revision petitioner on 30.06.2011 in O.S.No.36 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu. In the decree, the revision petitioner/judgment debtor was directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,03,900/- together with an interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of plaint till the date of decree and a further interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of decree till realization on the principal component of the plaint claim, namely Rs.1,50,000/- and also costs.

3. Since the revision petitioner/judgment debtor did not make payment of the decreetal amount, the respondent herein/decree holder levied execution by presenting E.P.No.105 of 2011 for recovery of the decree amount by effecting arrest of the judgment debtor and detaining him in the civil prison. As the Execution Petition is one for arrest, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu issued notice to the revision petitioner herein/judgment debtor and the revision petitioner filed a counter stating that he has got no means to pay the decree amount. It was also contended that a man of no means could not be arrested in execution of a decree for payment of money.

4. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu conducted an enquiry in which the decree holder figured as PW1 and the judgment debtor figured as RW1. The judgment debtor produced his medical records as R1 and no document was produced on the side of the decree holder.

5. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, at the end of enquiry, heard the arguments advanced on both sides and passed an order directing arrest of the judgment debtor. The said order is challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

6. In the Civil Revision Petition, before admission, notice was sent to the respondent/decree holder and the respondent is before this Court represented by a counsel. As stay of operation of the order passed by the Executing Court had been sought for, this Court passed a conditional order of stay directing deposit of Rs.25,000/- to the credit of the suit. The said condition was complied with by the judgment debtor. In view of the order of interim stay granted by this Court, the respondent/decree holder has chosen to file M.P.No.2 of 2013 to vacate the interim stay granted by this Court. As such, this matter stands listed today for hearing the stay petition, namely M.P.No.1 of 2013 and the vacate stay petition, namely M.P.No.2 of 2013 in the Civil Revision Petition. However, this Court expressed a view that instead of taking up the Miscellaneous petitions, Civil Revision Petition itself could be taken up for disposal, for which the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent expressed their consent.

7. Accordingly, the arguments advanced by Mr.V.Nicholas, learned counsel for the petitioner and by Mr.K.P.Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel for the respondent are heard. The documents produced in the form of typed-set of papers are also perused.

8. According to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the impugned order of the Court below is not sustainable and on the other hand, is liable to be set aside insofar as the learned Judge of the Executing Court has not followed the procedure contemplated in the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure dealing with the arrest of the judgment debtors in execution of money decrees. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner drew the attention of the Court to Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Rule 40 of Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code.