ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my gratitude towards my teacher, Rajesh Sharda, who gave me this
opportunity to work upon the topic “Arrest and Detention in Execution of Decree”, and who
also helped me with his guidance.

I would also like to thank my parents and friends who helped me in completing this
assignment within the limited time frame.

Rafid Akhter

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction 4

2. Nature and scope 4

3. When arrest and detention may be ordered 5

4. Who cannot be arrested 5

5. Procedure to be followed 6

6. Notice 6

7. Power and duty of the court 7

8. Recording of reasons 7

9. Period of detention 9

10.Release of judgment-debtor

11

11.Re-arrest of judgment-debtor

12

12.Case Laws 13

13.Conclusion 16

14.Bibliography. 17
2
 INTRODUCTION

A decree is passed by the court under the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as
CPC) to decide the rights and liabilities of the persons in a matter of controversy. The person
in whose favour a decree is passed is called decree-holder and against whom the decree is
passed is judgement debtor. There are various ways under civil law by which a decree can be
passed. One such way is “arrest and detention”.

The Code of Civil Procedure lays down various modes of executing a decree. One of such
modes is arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor in a civil prison. The decree-holder has
an option to choose a mode for executing his decree and normally, a court of law in the
absence of any special circumstances, cannot compel him to invoke a particular mode of
execution1. Sections 51 to 59 and Rules 30 to 41 of Order XXI deal with arrest and detention
of the judgment debtor in civil prison.

The substantive provisions deal with the rights and liabilities of the decree-holder and
judgment debtor and procedural provisions lay down the conditions thereof.

The provisions are mandatory in nature and must be strictly complied with. They are not
punitive in character. The object of detention of judgment-debtor in civil prison is twofold.
On one hand, it enables the decree-holder to realise the fruits of the decree passed in his
favour; while on the other hand, it protects the judgment debtor who is not in a position to
pay the dues for reasons beyond his control or is unable to pay.2 Therefore, mere failure to
pay the amount does not justify the arrest and detention of the judgment debtor inasmuch as
he cannot be held to have neglected to pay the amount to the decree-holder.

NATURE AND SCOPE

The provision is remedial in nature. It seeks to provide a remedy to the decree-holder where a
suit has been decided in his favour. Such a remedy can be in the form of arrest and detention
of the judgement debtor if he fails to satisfy the decree passed against him.

The provision applies to every person against whom the decree is passed under the Code.
When a decree is passed in favour of a person, then that person has to move to the court for
execution of that decree. The court then according to the provisions of the Code can order for
1 1 C.K. Takwani, Civil Procedure, 5th edition (2006), p. 458.
2 Supra Note 1.
3
 arrest and detention of the judgement debtor.

WHEN ARREST AND DETENTION MAY BE ORDERED?

Under Section 51(c)3 it is given that when a decree-holder moves to the court for executing a
decree, the court can execute such decree by the arrest and detention of the judgement debtor.

The decree for arrest and detention may be passed in the following cases given under Order
XXI:

· Under Rule 30, a decree for the payment of money can be executed by the arrest and
detention of the judgement debtor.
· Under Rule 31, where the decree is for a specific moveable party, it can be executed
by the arrest and detention of the judgement debtor.
· Under Rule 32, where the decree is for specific performance of the contract or an
injunction, the court can execute the decree by arrest and detention of the judgement
debtor.

WHO CANNOT BE ARRESTED?

There are certain classes of persons that are exempted from arrest and detention under the
various provisions of CPC. Such persons include:

1. Women, as per Section 56,

2. Judicial officers, as per Section 135(1),

3. Where a matter is pending, their pleaders, mukhtars, revenue-agents, and witnesses

acting in obedience to a summons, under Section 135(2),
4. Members of legislatures, as per Section 135A,

5. Classes of persons, whose arrest according to the State Government, might be

attended with danger or inconvenience to the public, under Section 55(2), and
6. Where the decretal amount is less than two thousand rupees, under section 58(1A).

PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED
3 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
4
A judgement debtor may be arrested in execution of any decree on any day at any hour with
certain conditions to it provided in Section 55 of CPC. It says that a judgement debtor can be
arrested at any hour or any day during the execution of a decree, and after such arrest, the
person must be presented before the court. However, there are certain restrictions regarding
entry and time. The conditions are:

 Must be bought before the court as soon as possible, and his detention may be in the
civil prison of the district.
 No dwelling house to be entered after the sunset or before sunrise.
 No outer door of the dwelling house must be broken to enter the house unless the house
is in possession of judgement debtor and he refuses to open it.
 If the room is in actual possession of woman who is barred by customs to be in public,
the officer must give reasonable time to her to withdraw and may enter the room for the
purpose of making an arrest.
 If the arrest is made where the decree in execution is a decree of money and the
judgement debtor pays the amount of decree and cost of arrest to the officer arresting
him, the officer must release him at once.

The court before issuing a warrant of arrest must ensure that a notice has been issued to the
judgement debtor providing him with an opportunity to explain the reasons for not complying
with the court orders. If the court is satisfied by any means, that the judgement debtor may
abscond the jurisdiction of the court and any other reasons which would cause in delay of
execution of the decree, then the court may order for the arrest of the judgement debtor.

NOTICE
Under Order XXI Rule 37, a person who is to be arrested shall be given a show-cause notice
to appear before the court and give reasons as to why he should not be committed to the civil
prison in execution of the decree.
A person who is to be arrested is handed a show-cause notice, which requires him to appear
before the court and explain why he should not be committed to the civil prison in execution
of the judgment.
However, if the court is satisfied, by affidavit or otherwise, that delaying the execution will
5
 result in the judgment debtor absconding from the jurisdiction, such notification is not
required. However, such notice is not necessary if the court is satisfied, by affidavit or
otherwise, that the effect of delaying the execution can lead to absconding of the jurisdiction
by the judgement debtor. If the judgement debtor does not appear before the court after
serving of the notice, if the decree-holder so requires, the court shall issue a warrant to arrest
such person.4

The objective of serving notice is to prevent the arrest and detention of an honest debtor who
is not able to pay the debt due to some sufficient cause. The procedure of giving show cause
notice is the acknowledgement of the rule of natural justice that any person shall not be
condemned unheard. Under Order XXI Rule 405, it is stated that if the person appears before
the court after the issuance of the notice as given under Rule 37, the court shall hear the
decree-holder for the execution of the decree and then give the chance to the judgement
holder for showing as to why he should not be arrested.

Where a judgement debtor appears before the court and shows the reasonable cause for his
inability to pay the decretal amount and the court is satisfied that he is unable to pay, the
court may reject the application of the arrest. However, if the judgement debtor could not
satisfy the court against the order passed against him for arrest and detention, the court may
commit him to the civil prison, subject to the provisions of the code.

It has been held in the case of Mayadhar Bhoi v. Moti Dibya6, where a money decree has not
been paid by the judgement debtor within thirty days since that order was made, the court on
the application by the decree-holder require the judgement debtor to give an affidavit stating
the particulars of his assets, and if the person disobeys such order, he can be detained for
three months.

Where an inquiry has been passed in accordance with sub-rule 1 of Order XXI Rule 40, the
court may after the conclusion of the inquiry, subject to the provisions given in Section 51
and to the other provisions of the code, order the person to be committed to the prison and
shall order for arrest of the person if he is not already arrested.

4 M.P Jain, The Code of Civil Procedure, 2nd edition (2007), pp.206-207.
5 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
6 AIR 1984 Ori 162.
6
 POWER AND DUTY OF THE COURT
Section 55 states that where a judgement debtor is arrested in execution of a decree for the
payment of money and is presented before the court, the court shall inform him to declare
himself as insolvent and he can be discharged if he has not done any act in bad faith
regarding the subject of the application and if he complies with the law of insolvency which
is in force at that time.

According to Order XXI Rule 39, a judgement debtor shall not be arrested for the execution
of the decree unless the decree-holder deposits the amount to the court, fixed by the judge, for
the subsistence of the judgement holder, from the time of the arrest until he is brought to the
court. And where such person is committed to the civil prison, the court shall fix the
subsistence as a monthly allowance according to Section 57, or where such scales are not
fixed, the court shall fix as it considers sufficient for that class of the person.

A judgment debtor may not be arrested to carry out the judgment unless the decree-holder
pays the court an amount established by the judge to cover the judgment debtor’s subsistence
from the time he is arrested until he is brought before the court.

If such a person is committed to a civil prison, the court shall calculate the subsistence as a
monthly allowance by Section 57, or, if such scales are not determined, the court shall decide
what it considers adequate for that type of person.

In the case of Amulya Chandra v. Pashupati Nath7, the court held that if the judgement
debtor despite having means to pay the decretal amount refuses to pay, he can be detained.
However, it must be checked whether such a person has means to pay and refuses to pay the
amount in bad faith.

These provisions were widely explained in the case of Jolly George Verghese v. Bank of
Cochin8, where Justice Krishna Iyer stated that a simple default is not enough, there must be
an element of bad faith beyond mere indifference to paying; some deliberate refusal or the
present means to pay a decree or a substantial part of it.

“The simple default to discharge is not enough. There must be some element of bad faith
beyond mere indifference to pay, some deliberate or recusant disposition in the past or
alternatively, current means to pay the decree or a substantial part of it.

7 AIR 1951 Cal 48.

8 1980 AIR 470.
7
The provision emphasises the need to establish not mere omission to pay but an attitude of
refusal on demand verging on dishonest disowning of the obligation under the decree. Here, a
consideration of the debtor’s other pressing needs and straitened circumstances will play
prominently. We would have, by this construction, sauced law with justice, harmonised
Section 51 with the covenant and the Constitution.”

It was ultimately propounded:

“It is too obvious to need elaboration that to cast a person in prison because of his poverty
and consequent inability to meet his contractual liability is appalling. To be poor, in this land
of daridra narayana, is no crime and to recover debts by the procedure of putting one in
prison is too flagrantly violative of Article 21 unless there is proof of the minimal fairness of
his wilful failure to pay in spite of his sufficient means and absence of more terribly pressing
claims on his means such as medical bills to treat cancer or other grave illness.
Unreasonableness and unfairness in such a procedure is inferable from Article 11 of the
covenant. But this is precisely the interpretation we have put on the proviso to 51 of CPC and
the lethal blow of Article 21 cannot strike down the provision, as now interpreted”.[xv]

RECORDING OF REASONS
The powers of the Court to enforce execution and Enforcement of decrees against legal
representatives are defined under Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Section 51
says that an order for detaining a person shall not be passed unless, after the person has been
provided with an opportunity of showing cause why he should not be arrested, the court for
reasons recorded in writing must be satisfied:

· That the judgement debtor with the object of delaying the execution of the decree is
likely to abscond or or leave the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court or has
after the institution of the suit in which the decree was passed, dishonestly transferred,
concealed, or removed any part of his property, or committed any other act of bad
faith in relation to his property, or

· That the judgement debtor has the means to pay the amount or a substantial part of it
and refuses to pay the same, or

8
 · That the decretal amount has to be paid on account of the fiduciary relationship.

COURT’S DUTY AFTER THE ARREST OF THE JUDGMENT-

DEBTOR

A Court executing a decree for money is bound to inform the judgment-debtor when he is
brought under arrest before it that he may apply to be declared insolvent and that he might be
discharged on complying with the requirement of the law, but not on re-arrest after failing in
insolvency proceedings9.

This clause does not entitle the debtor to be declared an insolvent where his application does
not comply with the provisions of insolvency law. 10 It is open beyond the time given to apply
at subsequent due, to be declared insolvent on the strength of the permission previously
given11. But if the application of a judgment-debtor to be declared an insolvent has been
dismissed and he is re-arrested in the execution of decree against him he is not entitled to a
release on expressing his willingness to apply again to be declared an insolvent, so long as the
bar of the previous dismissal is not removed.

Prior to the adjudication, the rights are unaffected 12. A person arrested and brought up before
the Court might be discharged on giving security and stating his intention to apply to be
declared an insolvent, but if he has been sent to prison, he can only be released under Section
58, he cannot obtain his release from prison upon the mere admission of his subsequent
petition of Insolvency under section 21 of the Provisional Insolvency Act.13

SCOPE OF THE SECTION

This section prescribes a maximum time limit for the judgment-debtor’s detention, but provides
that the debt is not discharged thereby; the creditor has got a right to proceed against the
debtor’s property. It applies to all decrees and not to money decrees alone. But the period of
detention prescribed in section 58 applies to the money decree only.

9 Arjun Singh v. Gaman, 75 P.R. 1905.

10 Ponnuswami v. Narayanaswami, 14 M.L.T. 304.
11 Alagappa Chetti v. Sarathambal, I.L.R. 25 Mad. 724.
12 Kishan Chand v. Sassoon, 83 P.W.R. 1910.
13 Woodroffe and Ameer Ali, p. 767.
9
 PERIOD OF DETENTION
Before the section was amended the Court had no authority to fix any term for the
imprisonment of a judgment-debtor under this rule. The period of prior imprisonment that
had elapsed after the passing of the decree was counted and that period plus the new period
amounted altogether to a total period of imprisonment, and then this rule applied.14
A judgment-debtor, who has been imprisoned in execution of a decree, if the several periods
of his imprisonment be added together, for more than the maximum period for which he can
be legally kept in prison, is entitled to his release. A judgment debtor cannot be arrested and
imprisoned separately for the default in the payment of each instalment.15

Section 58 specifies the period for which a person can be detained, which is decided
according to the amount of the decree which has been passed against him by the court, and
where he has failed to pay that decretal amount.

It says that a person cannot be detained for more than three months if the decretal amount
exceeds five thousand rupees and, for an amount between two thousand to five thousand
rupees, such detention cannot exceed six weeks. If the amount does not exceed two thousand
rupees, no order for detention of the judgement debtor can be made.

It stipulates the length of time that a person can be detained, which is determined by the
amount of the court’s decree against him and whether or not he has paid that decreed amount.
It states that a person cannot be imprisoned for more than three months if the decretal sum
exceeds five thousand rupees, and six weeks if the amount is between two and five thousand
rupees. No order for detention of the judgment debtor can be made if the sum is less than two
thousand rupees.

According to Patna High Court, the new sub-section (I-A) applies even to pending cases, that
is, to applications filed in force but which were pending on 10th September 1976 when the
re-amended section came into force.16

Where, however, the decrial amount is more than Rs. 500, but does not exceed Rs. 1000, the
maximum period of detention is six weeks. Where the amount of the decree exceeds Rs.
1000, the period of detention cannot exceed three months.

14 Ghanshamdas v. Joharimall, I.L.R. 7 Bom 431.

15 Damodar v. Malhari, I.L.R 7 Bom 106.
16 Matal Chamar v. Phagu Rai, AIR 1978 Pat 143.
10
DISCHARGE OF THE DEBTOR ON THE REQUEST OF THE DECREE-
HOLDER

Where the decree-holder applied for execution of his decree after the release of the judgment-
debtor on the request of the decree holder, he was met by the objection that an adjustment had
taken place. The matter was the subject of inquiry because it was a proceeding taken out of
Court. The High Court, however, held that the decree-holder was bound to state why he applied
to have debtor discharged and that if no adequate reasons were shown must be taken to have
had his decree satisfied.

RELEASE OF JUDGMENT-DEBTO
Under Section 5817, every person who has been detained in civil prison shall be released before
the said period of detention on the following grounds:

· Where the decree against him has been fully satisfied,

· Where the amount mentioned in the warrant for his detention has been paid to the
police officer,
· Where the person on whose application the person was detained requests so, or

· Where the person on whose application such detention was made omits to pay
subsistence allowance.

Section 59 provides that a warrant issued by a court for the arrest of the person can be
cancelled anytime if there is some serious illness to the judgement-debtor. And if such arrest
has already been made, and it appears to the court that the person is not in a fit state of health
to be in prison, may order for his release.

Where the judgement debtor has been committed to prison, he may be released:

· By the State Government, if there exists some infectious or contagious disease, or

· By the court which granted the execution;

· Or any court which is superior to the above court, on the grounds of serious illness.

17 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

11
 This provision shall be applied liberally since it is a beneficial provision. Also when a person
is released after the completion of the period of the arrest given under Section 5818, the person
is not discharged from his duty to pay the decretal amount to the decree-holder.

Where a person intends to apply to be declared as insolvent in accordance with Section 55,19
and furnishes security to the satisfaction of the court, that he will apply for being insolvent
within one month and that he will appear when called for the proceedings related to the
insolvency application or for the execution of the decree of which he was arrested, the court
can release him for such period and if he fails to apply for the application and to appear, the
court can direct the security to be realized that was given by him or commit him to prison.

Where an inquiry is pending under sub rule 1 of Order XXI Rule 40, the court can order the
release of the judgement debtor, upon its discretion if the judgement debtor furnishes the
security to the satisfaction of the court for his appearance before the court.

Also, the court in order to give the opportunity of satisfying a decree to the judgement debtor,
before ordering the detention of the person, under sub rule 3 of Order XXI Rule 40, can
provide fifteen days to the judgement debtor for satisfying the decree, by leaving the person
in custody of the police officer or may release him on furnishing security to the satisfaction of
the court, on the condition that the person will appear after the expiration of the specified
period if the decree is not satisfied before the end of the period.

Where the court does not make an order of detention under sub rule 3 of Order XXI Rule 40,
it can refuse the application and if the judgement debtor is already under arrest, order for his
release.

DISCHARGE OF THE DEBTOR ON THE REQUEST OF THE

DECREE-HOLDER

Where the decree-holder applied for execution of his decree after the release of the judgment-
debtor on the request of the decree holder, he was met by the objection that an adjustment had
taken place. The matter was the subject of inquiry because it was a proceeding taken out of
Court. The High Court, however, held that the decree-holder was bound to state why he

18 Ibid.
19 Ibid.
12
 applied to have debtor discharged and that if no adequate reasons were shown must be taken
to have had his decree satisfied.20

RE-ARREST OF JUDGMENT-DEBTOR
Any person that has been released on grounds of serious illness in accordance with Section
59 can be arrested again but the period of detention in aggregate should not be more than that
prescribed by Section 58. Any person whose period of arrest has been completed as given
under Section 58 cannot be arrested again under the decree in execution of which he was
detained in the civil prison. Any person that has been released in accordance with Order XXI
Rule 40 can be re-arrested.

INTERIM PROTECTION ORDER

A is arrested and committed to jail in execution of a decree against him. While in jail he files
his petition in insolvency, and obtains an interim protection order for one week, and is
thereupon released from jail. He then applies for a further protection order, but his application
is refused. Is A liable to be re-arrested in execution of the same decree?
The Calcutta High Court has held that he is not liable to be re-arrested, on the ground that a
judgment debtor was once discharged from jail, cannot be arrested a second time in execution
of the same decree.21 On the other hand, the High Court of Bombay has held that A is liable
to be re-arrested, as only cases in which a judgment-debtor is exempt from re-arrest are those
specified in this section and that release under an interim protection order is not one of
them.22

CASE LAWS
1. In B. Gangadharam v. D. Shiva Shankar Reddy, 2011 (3) ALD 831, our Hon’ble
High Court held that “it is only in exceptional cases where the executing court satisfied
that the Judgment Debtor is absconding from local limits of the Court that it can
dispense with the notice under order 21 rule 22 of CPC.

2. In Goparaju Venkata Satyanarayana v. Pallapragada Naga Venkata

20 Chango v. Kaluram, 4 Bom. H.C.A.C.I.

21 Judah v. Secretary of State for India, (1886) 12 Cal. 445.
22 Shamji v. Poonja, (1902) 26 Bom 652.
13
 Subramanyamurthy, 2006 (4) ALD 98, our Hon’ble High Court held that
“appearance of the JDr” means his physical appearance before the Executing Court on
the day fixed by the Court enabling the DHr to conduct the means enquiry in the
presence of JDr.

3. In Kasi Subbaiah Mudali v. Kasi Veeraswamy Mudali, 2002 (3) ALT, 240, our
Hon’ble High Court held that “according to Rule 37”, which mandates that once the
JDr appears before the court in obedience to the notice or brought before it on being
arrested, the Court shall proceed to hear the JDr and take all evidence in the presence
of the judgment debtor. The JDr shall be provided with a fair opportunity of showing
cause as to why he should not be committed to civil prison. Rule 40 envisages almost
an uninterrupted enquiry in the matter. This is the reason why it provides for detention
of the JDr in the custody of an officer of the Court or releasing on furnishing security
pending conclusion of the enquiry under sub-rule (1) Any order of arrest to be made
after conclusion of the enquiry under sub rule (1) of Rule, 40, is once again subject to
Section 51 CPC.

4. In Kalidindi Ramaraju v. Vijaya Bank, 2002 Suppl. (2) ALD 300 our Hon’ble High
Court evolved some principles while dealing with the petition filed under order 21 rule
37 of CPC as follows:

a. Passing cryptic orders not based on reasons have to be avoided.

b. Courts are expected to be cautious while making order of arrest in execution of

decree since it involves personal liberty;

c. Proper opportunity has to be given and necessary enquiry has to be made while
making an order of arrest;

d. Courts may also examine whether other modes of recovery are available to the
decree holder and in necessary to order arrest for recovery of the amount and
whether judgment debtors are wilfully and intentionally neglecting to discharge
the decree debts and Court may examine the relevant circumstances also in this
14
 regard;

e. Even while making an order of arrest in default of appearance of the judgment

debtors, Courts have to Prima facie satisfy themselves on the material placed
before them that an order of arrest can be made;

f. Courts shall also fix the period for which the judgment debtors are to be kept in
detention.

5. In Kovvuri Mallikarjuna Reddy v. Kota Shankara Rao, 2003 (6) ALD (NOC) 112
our Hon’ble High Court held that “a simple default of the JDr is not enough. There
must be some element of bad faith beyond mere indifference to pay some deliberate or
recusant disposition in the past or alternatively, current means to pay the decree or a
substantial part of it. Section 51 CPC emphasized the need to establish not mere
omission to pay but an attitude of refusal as demand verging on dishonest disowning of
the obligation under the decree.

6. In P. Subba Rayadu v. Kattamuri Sri krishna 2008(4) ALD 454, our Hon’ble High
Court gave clarification regarding how to assess the means of the JDr as follows:
“Explanation to Section 51 CPC, while defining the power of the Executing Court,
explains that “in the calculation of the means of the judgment debtor for the purposes
of clause (b), there shall be left out of account of any property which, by or under any
law or custom having the force of law for the time being in force, is exempt from
attachment in execution of the decree. It is thus clear that while assessing the means of
the JDr for the purpose of execution of a decree by committing the JDr to civil prison,
the property which is exempted from attachment under any law or custom have the
force of law cannot be taken into consideration. Section has specifically exempted
some items like houses of agriculturist, wages of labourer or a domestic servant etc.,
Those items of property even if possessed by the JDr, they cannot be treated as means
to enable him to pay the decree debt.

7. In G. Sudhakara Reddy v. Jahnavi Chit Fund Pvt., Ltd., 2006 (4) ALT 665,
wherein, our Hon’ble High Court held that “The executing Court can not presume
means possessed by JDr without sufficient evidence.
15
8. In S. Ismail and another v. Agraseni Chit Funds Pvt., Ltd., 2004(5) ALD 138,
wherein our Hon’ble High Court held that “ the executing Court shall follows the
procedure prescribed under rule 40 of order 21 and it cannot straight away order the
arrest under 21 rule 37 of CPC.

9. In Badrachalam Satyanarayana v. Lotla Varalaxmi, 2004 (1) Andhra Weekly

Reports 565, wherein our Hon’ble High Court held that “opportunity of hearing of the
JDr is imperative before ordering arrest. In the said case the executing Court passed an
order at the stage under order 21 rule 37; “JDr called absent. No evidence is
contemplated before arrest. Hence arrest JDr by 5-12-2012. In the said circumstances
our Hon’ble held that “the above said order is patently erroneous because the Court
shall proceed to hear the decree holder and take all such evidence as may be produced
by him in support of his application for execution and shall then give the judgment
debtor an opportunity of showing cause as to why he should not be committed to civil
prison. Without following this procedure, the Court has simply mentioned that no
evidence is required to be received before arrest. The order of arrest was held to be
invalid and does not stand for scrutiny in the light of the failure of the executing Court
to follow the procedure indicated in Rules 40 of Order 21.

10. In K. Prabhakar Reddy v. P. Saida Rao, 2011 (5) ALD, 460 wherein our Hon’ble
High Court held that” the JDr is a practising advocate having sufficient means but
avoiding to pay the E.P. Amount, such conduct of a practising advocate is deplorable,
therefore directed the Bar Council of A.P. to examine the conduct of said advocate
whether it is desirable to continue such a person in the Noble profession.

16
CONCLUSION
The purpose of arrest and detention is to give relief to a decree-holder and commit the
judgement debtor to civil prison if he does not pay the decretal amount despite having the
means to pay the same. However, it also protects honest debtors, where their inability to pay
is supported by a reasonable cause.

The court has to afford the right to be heard by the debtors in order to ensure proper justice.
With the judgements of different courts and the sections and rules provided under CPC
explains what the procedure is and how it is used during arrest and detention in execution of
decree.

The rule extends to someone who is the target of a Code-enforced decree. If a decision is
issued in a person's favour, the person must go to court to get the decree carried out. The
court will then order the judgement debtor's arrest and imprisonment based on the Code's
provisions.

The Low Commission observed

that the provision should not be
completely abolished, but
rather a
recommended the following
changes to section 51, proviso,
clause (a) and clause (b)
17
14 | P a g e

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books:

· C.K. Takwani, Civil Procedure, 5th edition (2006).

· M.P Jain, The Code of Civil Procedure, 2nd edition (2007).

Bare Act:

· Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

18
Websites:

· https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/arrest-and-detention-under-civil-law/

· https://blog.ipleaders.in/arrest-and-detention/

· https://districts.ecourts.gov.in/sites/default/files/DLSANLG.pdf

· https://legalraj.com/articles-details/arrest-and-detention-under-cpc-1908

· http://lawtimesjournal.in/arrest-and-detention/

· http://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1908-05.pdf

· https://www.shareyouressays.com/knowledge/provisions-of-the-c-p-c-with-regard-to-

arrest-and-detention-of-a-judgement-debtor-in-civil-proceedings/119328

19