1. This is a judgment debtor's revision as against the order of the learned Principal Sub Judge, Tiruvannamalai in E.P. No. 99 of 2007 in O.S. No. 3 of 2005 directing his arrest and detention in Civil prison for not discharging a decree debt.

2. In O.S. No. 3 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal Sub Judge, Tiruvannamalai, the plaintiff/respondent sued the defendant/revision petitioner for Rs. 1,65,000/- with 9% interest p.a. and with future interest @ 6% p.a. due on a debt found on a promissory note. Ultimately, on 14.11.2006, the suit was decreed. The defendant became a judgment debtor. The plaintiff became a decree holder.

3. To collect the decree debt now amounting to Rs. 2,38,091/- the decree holder levied execution in E.P. No. 99 of 2007 by arresting the judgment debtor and putting him in civil prison. The Execution Court issued him show cause notice. He appeared. He filed his counter. He pleaded no means. Enquiry was conducted. The decree holder let in means evidence. The judgment debtor let in no means evidence.

4. Upon appreciating their evidence oral and documentary, the Execution Court concluded that since the judgment debtor is receiving pension and he is also having a share in a joint family property, he has means (financial capacity) to satisfy the decree debt, but he has no intention to discharge the same. Thus, ordered his arrest and detention in civil prison.

5. Aggrieved, the judgment debtor/revision petitioner has directed this revision.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that before ordering his detention, the Execution Court must come to a conclusion that inspite of having sufficient means, the judgment debtor had refused, neglected to pay the decree debt. The decree holder must prove the financial soundness of the judgment debtor. This has to be proved through means evidence. However, in this case, it was not so established.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further contended that right to live has been constitutionally guaranteed in this country in Article 21, Constitution of India. On account of inability to pay debt, sending a person to jail is depriving him of his liberty in an inhuman way.

8. In this connection, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would cite Jolly George Varghese and Another vs. The Bank of Cochin, (1980) 2 SCC 360 and Senthil Kumar vs. K.M.N. Surendran, 2012 (3) CTC 294.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that by means evidence, it has been established that the judgment debtor is in receipt of pension and he is also having properties which he could have disposed of and raised money but he did not do so because he has no intention to do so. In such circumstances, the Execution Court has rightly ordered his detention in civil prison. There is no flaw in its order. The decisions cited are not applicable to the facts of this case.

10. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned order, materials on record and the decisions cited.

11. While the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 providing for passing of decrees, it had also prescribed several modes by which such decrees could be executed through Execution Court. Let us notice them hereunder with special emphasis on the mode of execution by arrest and detention of a judgment debtor in civil prison.

12. Section 51 C.P.C. dealing with powers of Court to enforce execution runs as under:

''51. Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the Court may, on the application of the decree-holder, order execution of the decree:-

(a) by delivery of any property specifically decreed.

(b) by attachment and sale or by sale without attachment of any property.

(c) by arrest and detention in prison.

(d) by appointing a receiver.

(e) in such other manner as the nature of the relief granted may require.

Provided that, where the decree is for the payment of money, execution by detention in prison shall not be ordered un