Judgment.- This is a petition to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin dated 9th December, 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.1,000 due from him. The learned Subordinate Judge passed an order on 28th September, 1950, as follows: “P.W.1 examined. Ex. A-1 marked. For payment by 10th November, 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 9th December, 1950.” On 9th December, 1950, the only order is: “Judgment-debtor absent. Arrest by 9th January, 1951.” 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, Civil Procedure Code, as he was bound to do and as he had originally intended to do (see Note on 28th September, 1950). In Venkatasubba Rao v. Majeti Sriramulu 1, I have held that a Court must record 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 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.1,000) were paid by this petitioner on 24th November, 1950, cannot, by itself, prove that the man had means to pay the entire Rs.1,000 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 would have been heard and considered. A Bench of this Court insisting of Subba Rao, J., and myself has in M.V.P. Paramanandaswami alias Pichumuthu Pillai v. A.K. Shanmugam Pillai1 again emphasised the need for strictly observing the provisions of section 51, Civil Procedure Code. A Bench of this Court insisting of Subba Rao, J., and myself has in M.V.P. Paramanandaswami alias Pichumuthu Pillai v. A.K. Shanmugam Pillai1 again emphasised the need for strictly observing the provisions of section 51, Civil Procedure Code. 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 person of citizens, should not be treated lightly thus. It is obvious that the lower Court’s order must be set aside and the matter remanded to the lower Court for hearing the judgment-debtor, or giving him an opportunity for being heard, and passing a fresh order of arrest if justified, giving full reasons under section 51, Civil Procedure Code, and I do accordingly. In the circumstances of this case, all the parties to this Civil Revision Petition will bear their own costs. K.C. ----- Petition allowed.