Judgment :- 1. The main objection raised on behalf of the appellant is that the application for execution which was filed against him in the Court below was for recovering more than Rs. 455 which was the amount specified in the surety-bond and to which extent alone the appellant undertook responsibility as surety. The respondent's learned counsel concedes that this contention is well founded. In execution of the decree, the appellant seems to have been arrested and produced before court when he made a part payment of Rs. 100 when he seems to have been released. It must be made clear that any future application in execution against him should be restricted to the maximum amount of Rs. 455 mentioned in the surety-bond, after crediting payments, already made. It is also contended on behalf of the appellant that the court below was not justified in issuing a warrant of arrest without conforming to the terms of the proviso to S.44 of the Civil Procedure Code. It does not appear that the appellant was directed to be detained in prison by the court below. If and when such an order is contemplated it is incumbent upon the court below to act according to the terms of the proviso adverted to and to record its reasons in writing for committing the appellant to the civil jail. Without conforming to these terms, he cannot be arrested again. The appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.