SINGHAL, J. - (1.) SINCE a common question of law and similar facts are involved in the above three revision petitions, they are disposed of by this common order.
(2.) THE dispute relates to the orders passed by the Executing Court on 24. 01. 1992. An objection with regard to limitation was raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. After hearing the parties, the delay is condoned and the revisions are being considered to be within time. The grievance raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Executing Court has no jurisdiction to send the Chairman and Managing Director, who were not the parties before the trial court, for civil imprisonment in execution of a decree. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the provisions of Sections 51, 55 and 58 of the Civil Procedure Code, besides the provisions of 0. 21 R. 37. The procedure for execution has been provided under S. 51 CPC which is as under ': - "51. Powers of Court to enforce execution-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 (for such period not exceeding the period specified in section 58, where arrest and detention is permissible under that section (d) by appointing a receiver; or (e) in such other manner as the nature of the relief granted may require: Provided that, where the decree is for payment of money, execution by detention in prison shall not be ordered unless after giving the judgment debtor an opportunity showing a cause why he should not be committed to prison, the court, for reasons recorded in writing, is satisfied,- (a) that the judgment debtor, with the object or effect of obstructing or delaying the execution of the decree, - (i) is likely to abscond or leave the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court, or (ii) 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 (b) that the judgment debtor has, or has had since the date of the decree, the means to, pay the amount of the decree or some substantial part thereof and refuses or neglects or has refused or neglected to pay the same, or (c) that the decree is for a sum for which the judgment-debtor was found in a fiduciary capacity to account. " From the above provision it is evident that arrest and detention in prison could be in respect of a decree for payment of money Clause (e) of the above section provides that the execution could be in such other manner as the nature of the relief granted may require, Would not cover the execution by way of arrest or detention in prison unless it has specifically been provided so. Section 55 provides for arrest and detention of a judgment-debtor, whereas the judgment debtor may be arrested in execution of a decree but that also in its application refers to a money, decree, inasmuch as it has been provided that if a judgment debtor expresses his intention to apply to be declared as insolvent. . . . . . . . . In sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 55, the intention could be that it is on account of non-payment of money for which decree has been awarded and a judgment debtor could be arrested and sent to civil imprisonment. Section 58 provides as under: - "58. Detention and release.- (Every person detained in the civil prison in execution of a decree shall be so detained, - (a) where the decree is for the payment of a sum of money exceeding (one thousand rupees, for a period not exceeding three months, and) (b) where the decree is for payment of a sum of money exceeding five hundred rupees, for a period not exceeding six weeks: Provided that he shall be released from such detention before the expiration of the said period of detention, - (i) on the amount mentioned in the warrant for his detention being paid to the officer-in-charge of the civil prison, or (ii) on the decree passed against him being otherwise fully satisfied, or (iii) on the request of the person on whose application he has been so detained, or (iv) on the omission by the person, on whose application he has been so detained, to pay subsistence-allowance. Provided also xx xx xx xx"
(3.) FROM a perusal of the above provision, it is also clear that the detention in civil prison could be for a period not exceeding 3 months where a payment of money is exceeding one thousand and the said period is not exceeding 6 weeks where the decree is for payment of a sum exceeding Rs. 500/ -. All these provisions specially provide for a decree in respect of payment of money. The intention is made clear by order 21 rule 37, which provides that notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, where an application is for the execution of a decree for the payment of money by the arrest and detention in the civil prison of a judgment debtor who is liable to be arrested in pursuance of the application, the Court shall instead of issuing a warrant for his arrest, issue a notice calling upon him to appear before the Court on a day to be specified in the notice and show cause why he should not be committed to civil prison. This also refers that arrest and detention could be permissible only in respect of execution of decree for payment of money. Order 21 Rule 41 provides for attachment of property for payment of money, that is an additional mode where the decree is for payment of money. The submission of the learned counsel for the non-petitioner that the provisions of Order 21 Rule 32 are applicable is not the correct interpretation of law. The said provisions are applicable where the party against whom decree for specific performance of contract or for restitution of conjugal rights or' for an injunction has been passed. In the present case the submission of the learned counsel is that it is a case of injunction and, therefore, power under this rule could be exercised. I am afraid, the decree in the present case could not be considered to be for injunction and the provisions of Order 21 Rule 32 CPC are not applicable. ;