Judgment 1. This is an application in revision filed by the judgment-debtor against the concurrent orders of the two courts below allowing the prayer of the decree-holder for issuance of the warrant of arrest against the petitioner for detaining him in civil prison on the ground that he had means to pay the decree money, but had neglected to pay the same. The amount of the decree under execution was only Rs. 200/-. It was a decree for costs. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on S. 58 (1A) of the Civil P. C. as it stands after amendment by the Civil P. C. (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No. 104 of 1976), which reads as follows: "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." A question arises for determination whether this sub-section of S. 58 which has been inserted by the Amending Act and has come into force from 10-9-1976 only can apply to a case which is pending from before. In my opinion, the amended provision does apply even to pending cases, firstly, for the reason that S. 97 of the Amending Act while laying down that certain provisions inserted by the Amending Act will not apply to pending cases is silent about this amendment, and, secondly, for the reason that it is a provision for the benefit of the judgment-debtor where the amount of decree is small. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that in view of the amendment, the judgment-debtor cannot be detained in civil prison and the order of the courts below must be set aside. 3 An objection has been raised on behalf of the opposite party that no civil revision lies against the order. It is not necessary to decide this question for the petitioner has paid the deficit court-fee which may be required to be paid if this application is treated as an appeal. Hence the question whether an appeal is maintainable or a civil revision is maintainable is not very material. 4. It is not necessary to decide this question for the petitioner has paid the deficit court-fee which may be required to be paid if this application is treated as an appeal. Hence the question whether an appeal is maintainable or a civil revision is maintainable is not very material. 4. In the result, the application succeeds and the order of the Courts below allowing the prayer of the decree-holder for issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner for detaining him in civil prison is set aside. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.