I. C. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THE trial court has passed a very shocking and surprising order on 9-12-80 on an Execution application Exhibit 17 in Special Darkhast No. 36/77 ordering the arrest of the petitioner-judgement debtor and of detaining him in Civil prison. It is difficult to find out as to on what ground this order has been passed, but one thing is clear that it has been passed completely ignoring the proviso contained in Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure and without coming to any finding or conclusion that any of the conditions contemplated in proviso to Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure are satisfied for the purpose of detaining the petitioner in civil prison. ( 2 ) IN the judgement and order, the trial court has come to the conclusion that since the judgment debtor is not in possession of any property as disclosed from the report of the bailiff, the decree holder is entitled under law to request the court to detain him in civil prison. Therefore, the trial court has allowed the application and has passed the order that judgment debtor be detained in civil prison as prayed for. Now this order appears to have been passed completely ignoring the proviso to Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under:"subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the court may, on the application of the decree-holder, order execution of the decree- a. by delivery of any property specifically decreed;b. by attachment and sale or by sale without attachment of any property;c. by arrest and detention in prison for such period not exceeding the period specified in Section 58, where arrest and detention is permissible under that Section;d. . . . . . . . . . e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e. . . . . . . . . . PROVIDED that where the decree is for the payment of money, execution by detention in prison shall not be ordered unless, after giving the judgement debtor an opportunity of showing cause why he should not be committed to prison, the court, for reasons recorded in writing, is satisfied- a. that the judgment debtor with the object or effect of obstructing or delaying the execution of the decree- i. is likely to abscond or leave the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court, orii. has, after the institution of the suit in which the decree was passed, dishonestly transferred, concealed or removed any part of his property, or committed any other act of bad faith in relation to his property, orb. that the judgment debtor has, or has had since the date of the decree, the means to pay the amount of the decree or some substantial part thereof and refuses or neglects or has refused or neglected to pay the same, orc. that the decree is for a sum for which the judgment-debtor was bound in a fiduciary capacity to account. "explanation : In the calculation of the means of the judgment debtor for the purposes of clause (b), there shall be left out of account any property which, by or under any law or custom having the force of law for the time being in force, is exempt from attachment in execution of the decree. ( 3 ) NOW proviso to Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure clearly provides as to when a person can be detained in a civil prison. As per that provision, the trial court has power to detain the judgment-debtor in civil prison. But that can be done only after giving the judgment-debtor an opportunity of showing cause as to why he should not be committed to prison, and recording reasons for the same in writing and further only after the court is satisfied that any of the conditions of proviso (a), (b), (c) are satisfied. Now in the present case, the trial court has not come to any conclusion regarding any of the conditions mentioned in proviso (a), (b), (c) to Section 51 of the Civil Procedure Code. Now in the present case, the trial court has not come to any conclusion regarding any of the conditions mentioned in proviso (a), (b), (c) to Section 51 of the Civil Procedure Code. From the order of the trial court, it is clear that no reasons are given in writing that the court is satisfied as to any of the conditions mentioned in clauses (a), (b), (c ). The trial court has mentioned only one ground in the order that the judgment-debtor is not in possession of any property as disclosed from the report of the bailiff and therefore the decree-holder is entitled under law to request the court to detain him in civil prison. Except this, no other reasons are given. Now the reason, that is given, is outside the purview of proviso to Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure for detaining the judgment-debtor in civil prison. ( 4 ) IT will not be out of place to mention here that while deciding such cases, it should be borne in mind that poverty is no crime. Even so property-oriented approach in statutory provisions often results in a poor man being prized out of justice. The acuteness of extreme poverty could be best understood only by experiencing it. The plight of the impecunious in all its severity may not be fully realised even by an enlightened class engaged in statute and rule-making. Whatever may be said of the legistlations prior to the Constitution, in any egalitarian society where justice is promised to the poor and the rich alike, there is no scope for a law which virtually keeps out a penurious person from the benefit of the law or puts him to the penalty of a provision for reason of his impecuniousness. It is basic duty of every citizen and society to raise the standard of a poor man and also are duty bound for upliftment of down-trodden and raise their standard of living. Every effort should be made to uplift him and raise his standard in the society but not at the cost of robbing the peter for paying the piper. Every law abiding citizen must work sincerely to lift and raise the standard of living for down-trodden citizen. Our national resources should be utilised in such a way that it helps the poor people to raise their standards and living conditions. Every law abiding citizen must work sincerely to lift and raise the standard of living for down-trodden citizen. Our national resources should be utilised in such a way that it helps the poor people to raise their standards and living conditions. ( 5 ) THEREFORE, I am of the opinion that the trial court has not considered correctly the proviso to Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure in its proper perspective. The proviso itself makes it clear that where the decree is for payment of money, the execution by detention in prison shall not be ordered unless the conditions mentioned therein are satisfied. The learned advocate for the petitioner has invited my attention to the judgment of this court in the case of Mistry Maneklal Chhaganlal v. Prajapati Hargovandas Ramjibhai, reported in 16 G. L. T. P-201 (C. R. A. No. 701/79, decided on 18-7-1979), whereby this court has taken the view that arrest of a judgment-debtor in execution of a money decree is not an ordinary and usual way of executing the decree. This remedy can be resorted to only if one of the four conditions specified in proviso to Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure is satisfied. ( 6 ) THEREFORE, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the order passed by the trial court is illegal and the trial court has acted with material irregularity, which has resulted in failure of justice and irrepairable injury is caused to the party viz. judgment-debtor, who is ordered to be detained in civil prison. Therefore the order passed by the Executing court is unsustainable and is liable to be quashed. I therefore, set aside the order dated 9-12-1980 passed below Exhibit 17 in Special Darkhast No. 36/77 by the Civil Judge (S. D.) Baroda. ( 7 ) THE result is that this Civil Revision Application is allowed. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. Rule made absolute. .