- (1.)The Respondent filed a claim against the present Ravision Petitioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and his claim was granted by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. Thereafter, the Respondent started execution proceedings in the Civil Court by filing Regular Darkhast No. 19 of 1977. After having failed to recover the amount, he applied in the Civil Court for detaining the present revision petitioner in Civil Prison and, accordingly, the present Petitioner was kept in Civil Prison for 21 days and was thereafter released. There is no dispute about this in the present revision application. Even after the release of the revision Petioner, the amount of the Respondent was not recovered and so again on 4-9-1981, the presint Respondent filed another application in the Civil Court for re-arresting the Petitioner and for detaining him in Civil Prison for another period. This application was opposed on behalf of the Petitioner, but on 3-ll-1981, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division allowed this application and directed that the judgment-debtor, i.e., the revision Petitioner, should be detained in Civil Prison. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the present revision petition is filed.
(2.)Shri D. B. Yevtikar, appearing for the Petitioner, has challenged the order of the trial Court on two grounds. His first ground is based on section 58 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. This section clearly lays down that no man shall be liable to be re-arrested under the decree in execution of which he was detained in the Civil Prison. The revision petitioner was already detained in Civil Prison once in execution of this decree and, therefore, by virtue of this section, the pusent revision petitioner cannot be re arrested and cannot be detained in Civil Prison in execution of the same decree again.
(3.)The second contention of Shri Yevtikar is on more stronger grounds. Shri Yevtikar placed reliance upon section 31 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. It runs as follows :
"31. Recovery.The Commissioner may recover as an arreas of land revenue any amount payable by the person under this Act, whether under an agreement for the payment of compensation or otherwise, and the Commissioner shall be deemed to be a public officer within the meaning of section 5 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890."
Now, it is an admitted fact that the darkhast is filed for the recovery cf the amount of compensation, which is payable to the Respondent under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Section 31 of the said Act lays down the mode of recovery of such amount and it clearly says that this amount is to be recovered by the Commissioner and that too as an arrear of land revenue. It is nowhere laid down that the order of the Commissioner is to be terated as a decree of the Civil Court and that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply for the recovery of such dues. It is needless to say that when an amount is to be recovered as an arrear of land revenue, an execution application in the Civil Court is not maintainable for the recovery of that amount. The said amount has got to be recovered as an arrear of land revenue and on this ground also, the darkhast itself is not tenable for recovery of this amount.