P. Devadass, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of arrest order passed in E.P. No. 15 of 2012 in O.S. No. 27 of 2006 by the Execution Court/Sub Court, Kovilpatti. By the money decree passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Kovilpatti in O.S. No. 27 of 2006 the revision petitioner became a judgment debtor and the respondent became a decree holder.

2. In realization of the decree debt, the respondent levied execution in E.P. No. 15 of 2012 by seeking arrest of the judgment debtor. The decree debt was calculated at Rs. 2,14,676.50. The execution Court ordered arrest of the judgment debtor. The Court bailiff arrested him. As the judgment debtor paid Rs. 2,000/-, part satisfaction was recorded and he got a temporary reprieve.

3. At this juncture, he has directed this Civil Revision Petition assailing his arrest and direction to send him to civil prison.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that already the revision petitioner has petitioned the Insolvency (Sub Court) Court, Kovilpatti in I.P. No. 3 of 2010. As per Section 55(3) C.P.C. when a person has given I.P., he cannot be arrested. And Section 55(4) C.P.C., gives him liberty to mention before the Execution Court his intention to move the insolvency Court, then he shall not be arrested.

5. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would cite Allamelu Ammal V.T.S. Venkatarama Iyer ((1927) 26 L.W. 305 : AIR 1927 Madras 919).

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the said decision is distinguishable on facts. Further, the I.P. matter was not brought to the notice of the Execution Court. Further, it is an attempt by the judgment debtor to delay the payment.

7. In reply, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that filing of I.P. can be brought to notice of the Court at any stage of the proceedings.

8. I have considered the rival submissions, perused the materials on record, orders and direction of the Execution Court and the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

9. Now, it is judgment debtor v. decree holder. The decree holder wants to put the judgment debtor in civil prison and he is prepared to pay the batta for the same. But the judgment debtor says that he has become a bankrupt. He would say that no money, no arrest.

10. This matter is to be viewed from two angles.

11. In the impugned order the arrest of the judgment debtor has been ordered and the inevitable consequence is his detention in the civil prison.

12. Sending a person to prison whether, civil or criminal is antithesis of one's liberty and personal freedom. Although food and shelter is provided in jail, after 5 p.m. it will be an hell. It also curtails personal liberty of a person (see Article 21, Constitution of India).

13. A provision for arrest and detention in civil prison is provided in the Code of Civil Procedure. However, Civil Procedure Code or any action taken thereunder should not militate against Article 21 of the Constitution of India because no man shall be deprived of his life or liberty except procedure established by law. (See Jolly George Verghese and Another v. The Bank of Cochin 1980 AIR 470) The procedure must be 'fair' and 'reasonable'. Even it may be an order of a Court to arrest a person, may be a judgment, it must conform to the said principle of law.

14. In abridging person's personal liberty, the statutory procedure contemplated should be strictly followed. Otherwise, it will go against Menaka Gandhi principle (see Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 AIR 597) because no man shall be deprived of his life or liberty in an unjust, arbitrary manner. Courts and Court orders are not exception to the Constitutional principle.

15. Now, in the case at our hand, if we read the impugned order, it shows that the mandatory provisions incorporated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been violated. First of all when a civil Court determines to send a judgm