Judgment :- 1. The short point is whether the execution court can order detention of a judgment-debtor in the civil prison under Order XXI R.32 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code for failing to obey a decree for an injunction without holding that the judgment-debtor has wilfully failed to obey it. The respondents filed a suit for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from entering the plaint schedule property. The suit was decreed. But, according to the respondents-decreeholders, the petitioner entered the plaint schedule property, put up a shed therein and started living there. So, the respondents filed E. P. No. 355 of 1978 before the Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode I under Order XXI R.32 (1), CPC for enforcing the decree by detention of the petitioner judgment debtor in civil prison. As the petitioner did not appear before the execution court he was declared ex parte on 7-11-1978. But the petitioner made an application for setting aside the ex parte and that was allowed by the execution court on 23-1-1979. Though the execution petition was posted to 21-2-1979 for filing a counter, as a matter of fact, the petitioner did not file. But, thereafter, on 9-3-1979 the petitioner filed his counter along with an application to receive the same. That application was returned by the execution court. Though another application was filed on 14-3-1979, the court dismissed all the applications filed by the petitioner and passed the impugned order for the arrest of the petitioner. The order reads: "This is an execution petition for taking action against the violation of decree passed against the respondent by arrest and detention of the respondent in civil prison. The respondent has not filed any objection to this. The decree produced along with this E. P. would go to show that the respondent is restrained from trespassing and committing any waste. Hence arrest the respondent." In this Civil Revision the judgment-debtor has challenged the above order of the execution court. 2. 0.21 R.32 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code reads "32. Decree for specific performance for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction. Hence arrest the respondent." In this Civil Revision the judgment-debtor has challenged the above order of the execution court. 2. 0.21 R.32 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code reads "32. Decree for specific performance for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction. (1) Where the party against whom a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction, has been passed, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has wilfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced in the case of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights by the attachment of his property or, in the case of a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for an injunction by his detention in the civil prison, or by the attachment of his property, or by both." It is clear from Order XXI R.32 (1), CPC., that the execution court cannot enforce a decree for an injunction by the detention of the judgment-debtor in civil prison simply because he merely disobeyed the same. The rule insists something more, and that is, the failure on the part of the judgment-debtor must be wilful. So, as long as there is no wilful failure on the part of the judgment-debtor to obey a decree for an injunction, no question of his detention in civil prison arises. In other words, without holding that the judgment-debtor has wilfully failed to obey the decree, the execution court cannot order his detention in the civil prison. The execution court gets jurisdiction to detain a judgment-debtor in civil prison only when he wilfully fails to obey the decree. In this case, a reading of the impugned order will make it clear that the execution court has not even adverted to the question whether the failure on the part of the petitioner-judgment debtor to obey the decree was wilful or not. So, the impugned order has to be interfered in revision. 3. Before parting with this case, it is only proper that I refer to one of the decisions cited at the bar. In Ram Autar v. Kaushal Kishore (AIR. 1965 Allahabad 44) it is held: "It may be possible to contend that the judgment-debtor committed a breach of the terms of the decree, but whether he wilfully disobeyed the directions contained in the decree is another matter. The jurisdiction conferred under Or. In Ram Autar v. Kaushal Kishore (AIR. 1965 Allahabad 44) it is held: "It may be possible to contend that the judgment-debtor committed a breach of the terms of the decree, but whether he wilfully disobeyed the directions contained in the decree is another matter. The jurisdiction conferred under Or. 21 R.32 of the Code can be exercised only where a party against whom an injunction has been passed has wilfully failed to obey it." In the light of the above decision also it is clear that the execution court had no jurisdiction to order the detention of the petitioner judgment-debtor in civil prison without holding that he has wilfully disobeyed the decree for injunction. 4. The order impugned is set aside and the matter remitted to the execution court for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. Allowed.