Arrest and detention in civil prison under Section 51 C.P.C. is permissible only upon a positive finding that the judgment-debtor has, or has had, the means to pay the decretal amount since the date of the decree and has willfully neglected or refused to pay.

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This revision petition is filed by the J.Dr. under Section 115 C.P.C. against the order, dated 09.01.2026, allowing E.P. No. 4 of 2022 in O.S.No.32 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ananthapuramu, filed by the D.Hr. under Order XXI, Rules 37 & 38 C.P.C. for realization of the decretal amount by arrest and detention of the respondent / J.Dr. in civil prison.

2. The suit was decreed on 21.01.2020 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,56,000/-. The D.Hr. contended that the J.Dr. having sufficient means to discharge the decretal amount as he was running a snacks shop and earning Rs.80,000/- per month, failed to discharge the decretal debt.

3. The J.Dr. filed a counter pleading that he had discharged the entire amount of the decree to the D.Hr. in the presence of the elders by receiving consideration in relation to sale of his property on 07.10.2021 to A. Bhalool Basha S/o. A. Fakroddin and that he has no means to maintain himself and his family.

4. Before the execution Court, the D.Hr., got herself examined as P.W.1 and also got examined another witness as P.W.2. No documents were exhibited on her behalf. The J.Dr. got himself examined as R.W.1 and also got examined another witness on his behalf as R.W.2. The agreement of sale-cum-G.P.A. executed by the J.Dr. in favour of Bhalool Basha on 07.10.2021 vide document No.11873/2021 was exhibited as Ex.R1.

5. After hearing both the parties, the execution Court held that the J.Dr. had failed to prove that he had discharged the liability under the decree as pleaded and that he had failed to discharge the decretal debt in spite of having sufficient means to pay due to sale of property on 07.10.2021 as per his admission, after passing of the decree, dated 21.01.2020. The execution Court further observed that Ex. R1 being an agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney cannot be considered as a sale deed and that the J.Dr. admitted in his cross examination that the alleged purchaser’s name had not been mutated in the municipal records relating to his house.

6. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that even if the agreement of sale-cum-general power of attorney is not a sale deed, having received the consideration thereunder, interest was created in favour of the purchaser and that since the decretal amount was discharged, nothing was left with the J.Dr. and therefore, he has no means personally. He further submitted that the D.Hr. failed to establish that the J.Dr. is doing snacks business and earning Rs.80,000/- per month, and therefore, in the absence of proof of means of the J.Dr. to discharge the decretal debt, no order of arrest can be passed.

8. He placed reliance on the decision of this High Court in Kanneganti Anjaneyulu Vs. State Bank of India ¹1997 (2) A. L. T. 303, wherein it was held at paragraph No.5 as follows:

“5. … The crucial question to be considered in this revision petition is whether the order of arrest of the petitioners for the purpose of committing them in civil prison as ordered by the lower Court in execution of (the decree for) payment of money is in consonance with the provisions of Section 51 of C.P.C. which reads as follows:

"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) x x x

(b) x x x

(c) by arrest and detention in prison for such period not exceeding the period specified in Section 58 where arrest and detention is permissible under that Section;

(d) x x x

(e) x x x

Provided that where the decree is for the payment