1. The respondent filed a claim against the present revision-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 proceeding in the Civil Court by filing Regular Darkhast No. 19 of 1977. After having failed to recover the amount, he applied in 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-petitioner, the amount of the respondent was not recovered and so again on 4.9.1981, the present respondent filed another application in the Civil Court for rear resting the petitioner and for detaining him in civil prison for another period. This application was opposed on behalf of the petitioner, but on 3.11.1981, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, allowed this application and directed that the judgment debtor, i.e., the present revision-petitioner, should be detained in civil prison. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the present revision petition is filed.
2. Mr. D. B. Yewtikar, appearing for the petitioner, has challenged the order of the Court on two grounds. His first ground is based on S. 58(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. This section clearly lays down that no man shall be liable to be rearrested 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 present revision petitioner cannot be rearrested and cannot be detained in civil prison in execution of the same decree again.
3. The second contention of Shri Yewtikar is on more stronger grounds. Shri Yewtikar placed reliance upon S. 31 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. It runs as follows :
'31. Recovery - The Commissioner may recover as an arrear of land revenue any amount payable by any 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 S. 5 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890.'
Now it is an admitted fact that the darkhast is filed for the recovery of 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 the amount is to be recovered by the Commissioner and that too as an arrears of land revenue. It is nowhere laid that the order of the Commissioner is to be treated 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 arrears 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 arrears of land revenue and on this ground also, the darkhast itself is not tenable for recovery of this amount.
4. The order of the Trial Court is without jurisdiction and is contrary to law and the revision application, therefore, deserves to be allowed and it is accordingly allowed and the order passed by that Trial Court on 3.11.1981 is hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute, but in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to the costs.