Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.
1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin dated 9-12-1950, in E. P. No. 130 of 1950, in S. C. S. No. 408 of 1949, directing arrest of the petitioner for recovering about Rs. 1000 due from him. The learned Subordinate Judge passed an order on 28-9-1950, as follows:
'P. W. 1. Examined. Ex. A. 1 marked. For payment by 10-11-1950 without deciding about the liability (evidently for arrest)'. On 10th November 1950, the judgment-debtor was absent, and the matter was adjourned to 20th November 1950, and then to 24th November 1950, when we find the note, 'Rs. 50 paid. Balance to be paid by 9-12-1950'. On 9th December 1950; the only order is: 'Judgment-debtor absent. Arrest by 9-1-1951.'
2. The judgment-debtor's vakil is said to have been present in Court. The learned Sub-Judge gave 'no reason whatever' for ordering arrest. Nor did he 'decide about the liability for arrest' under Section 51, C. P. C. as he was bound to do and as he had originally intended to do (see note on 28th September 1950). 'In Venkatasubba Rao v. Sriramulu', 1949 Mad W N 49 I have held that a Court must record its reasons in writing regarding its being satisfied, under 8. 51 C.P.C. as amended, that the judgment-debtor had rendered himself liable to be 'arrested and sent to civil jail', on any one of the grounds mentioned therein, before directing his arrest and detention in civil jail, and 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.' The mere fact that Rs. 50 (out of Rs. 1000) were paid by this petitioner on 24th November 1950 cannot, by itself, prove that the man had means to pay the entire Rs. 1000 and was still fraudulently withholding payment. Nor will the absence of the judgment-debtor in Court on 9th December 1950 be any valid reason for not writing out the reasons for ordering his arrest, especially when his vakil was present, and his arguments could have been heard and considered. A Bench of this Court, consisting of Subba Rao J. and myself, has in 'Paramanandaswami v. A. K. Shanmugam Pillai', 1949 Mad W N 294 again emphasised the need for strictly observing the provisions of Section 51 C. P. C. It is really surprising that the learned Sub-Judge should have, after these rulings, passed his bald order for arrest. The mandatory provisions of law, and the liberty of personof citizens, Should not be treated lightly thus. Itis obvious that the lower Court's order must be setaside and the matter remanded to the lower Courtfor hearing the Judgment-debtor, or giving him anopportunity of being heard, and passing a freshorder of arrest, if justified, giving full reasonsunder Section 51 Civil procedure Code, and I do accord-ingly. In the circumstances of this case, all theparties to this civil revision petition will bear theirown costs.