Kotha Venkatasubba Rao vs Majeti Sreeramulu

Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.—The only point for determination in this petition is whether the lower Court erred in law in directing the petitioner

to be arrested and sent to a civil jail without recording its reasons in writing regarding its being satisfied, u/s 51 Civil Procedure Code, as amended,

that the judgment-debtor had rendered himself liable to be arrested and sent to a jail on any one of the grounds mentioned therein. The lower

Court has not recorded the reasons contemplated in Section 51, Civil Procedure Code. It has simply rejected the contention of the petitioner that

he was unable to pay the debt. It has not found positively that he has had, since the date of the decree, the means to pay the amount of the decree

or some substantial part thereof and has refused or neglected to pay the same, or that, after the institution of the suit in which the decree was

passed, he has dishonestly transferred, concealed or removed any part of his property, or committed any other act of bad faith in relation to his

property, u/s 51(a)(2) and (b), or that he is likely to abscond, or leave the jurisdiction of the Court, u/s 51(a)(1), Section 51(c) having no

application to this case.

It was urged by the learned Counsel for the respondent that this judgment-debtor was on a former occasion, ordered to be arrested and that full

reasons were then given for his arrest, and that the lower Court had omitted to give the reasons now because of that. That order for arrest was not

taken advantage of or carried out. This is a fresh application made months later. My view is that reasons must be given every time a man is ordered

to be arrested, and in every proceeding where he is ordered to be arrested, even if it is on the same day; for, cases differ, and much depends on

lapse of time also. The Legislature has thought fit to order arrest and detention of civil debtors in jail only where the conditions prescribed in

Section 51 of the CPC are strictly satisfied. The lower Court did not even say that it was relying on the reasons already given. It therefore acted

without jurisdiction in ordering the arrest of the petitioner without recording its reasons u/s 51, Civil Procedure Code. Its order is set aside so far as

it relates to the arrest. The respondent will proceed to sell the attached moveables (if still available) said to be worth Rs. 109 or Rs. 500--(it is not

clear which, the parties differing on this) left with the sureties; then he can again ask for the arrest of the petitioner, and abide by the orders of the

Court which will, of course, comply with the provisions of Section 51, CPC strictly. In the circumstances, all the parties to this petition will bear

their own costs.