Salil Kumar Datta, J.
1. These three Rules are direct-ed against three orders issuing a warrant of arrest of the judgment-debtor, who is the petitioner before me, in execution of three decrees for money against him. It was submitted by Mr. Palit that before passing the orders no opportunity was given to his client to oppose the applications of the decree-holders for issue of warrant of arrest against his client. This contention is, not correct as the records show otherwise.
2. Mr. Palit, however, has taken a point of law which appears to be of sub-' stance. The proceedings arise out of execution of decrees passed by S. C. C. Court and each of the decrees is much below the sum of Rs. 500/-. Section 58(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure prior to its amendment as stated below, provided as follows :
'Every person detained in civil prison In execution of a decree shall' be so dp-tained -- (a) where the decree is for payment of a sum of money exceeding fifty rupees for a period of six months and, (b) in any other case for a period of six weeks .....'
3. The Code of Civil Procedure has been materially amended by the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act 1976 (No. 104 of 1976). By Section 22 of the amending Act, Section 58 of the Code was amended in respect of Sub-section (1) where for the words 'fifty rupees, for a period of six months, and', the words 'one thousand rupees, for a period not exceeding three months, and' have been substituted. After Sub-section (1) the following Sub-section as (1A) has been inserted :
'(1A) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that no order for detention of the judgment-debtor in civil prison in execution of a decree for the payment of money shall be made, where the total amount of the decree does not exceed five hundred rupees.'
The amending Act provides for various amendments to the existing Code of CivilProcedure and Sub-section (3) of Section 97 of the amending Act provides as follows :
'97 (3). Save as otherwise provided in Sub-section (2) the provisions of the principal Act, as amended by this Act, shall apply to every suit, proceeding, appeal or application, pending at the commencement of this Act or instituted or filed after such commencement, notwithstanding the fact that the right or cause of action in pursuance of which such suit, proceeding appeal or otherwise is instituted or filed, had been acquired or accrued before such commencement.'
Sub-section (2) of Section 97 by its various clauses provides for exclusion of the operation of the provisions of the amending Act in respect of various sections, orders and rules thereunder, providing that the amending provisions as expressly mentioned will have no effect on or shall not apply to pending proceedings. The provisions of Section 58 as amended will thus apply to all pending proceedings, as the operation of the amended provisions of this section has not been excluded by any clause of subsection (2) of Section 97 of the amending Act and has been made expressly applicable to all pending proceedings by subsection (3) of the said Section 97. The Amending Act was brought into force with effect from February 1, 1977 by a notification in official Gazette in so far as all its provisions are concerned except Sections 12, 13 and 50 which also came into force with effect from May 1, 1977.
4. In terms of the amended provisions there could be no order for detention in execution of decrees for amounts less than Rs. 500/-. The Court's attention was not drawn to this amended provision which accordingly passed the order of detention in respect of decrees for less than Rs. 500/-.
5. The orders, accordingly, cannot be sustained and have to be set aside. The Rules, accordingly are made absolute and the impugned orders in each of the three Rules are set aside.
6. There will be no order for costs. Revision allowed.