Skip to content


Kotha Venkatasubba Rao Vs. Majeti Sreeramulu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1948)2MLJ648
AppellantKotha Venkatasubba Rao
RespondentMajeti Sreeramulu
Excerpt:
.....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, under section 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. 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, under section..........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, under section 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.....
Judgment:

Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.

1. 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, under Section 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, under Section 51(a)(2) and (b), or that he is likely to abscond, or leave the jurisdiction of the Court, under Section 51(a)(1), Section 51(c) having no application to this case.

2. 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 Civil Procedure Code 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 under Section 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, Civil Procedure Code strictly. In the circumstances, all the parties to this petition will bear their own costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //