B. S. KAPADIA, J. ( 1 ) THE present Revision Application is filed by the original judgment debtor in Darkhast No. 45 of 1975 pending in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (JD) Borsad against the order passed by the learned Joint Dist. Judge Kheda at Nadiad on 21-2-1981 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 201 of 1980. The said appeal was filed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (JD) Borsad on 21-10-1975 in Exh. 1 in Regular Darkhast No. 45 of 1975. By the said order the learned Civil Judge ordered that the judgment debtor be detained in civil prison till he undertakes not to enter the suit land. The learned Civil Judge also ordered that warrant for the arrest of the Judgment Debtor be issued after the judgment creditor deposits in the court the amount of subsistence allowance for a period of one month. ( 2 ) THE short question that is raised in this revision application is whether in execution of a decree for permanent injunction the Court has power to detain the judgment debtor in civil prison for more than six months. ( 3 ) THE short facts leading to the present revision application can be stated as under: ( 4 ) THE deceased father of the respondent named Pandya Ambalal Narshibhai of village Asodar had filed a suit against the present petitioner being the Civil Suit No. 174 of 1967 in the Court of Civil Judge (JD) at Borsad for obtaining permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from obstructing him his use occupation and enjoyment of the suit land. In the said suit decree was passed on 14-11-1970 by the learned Civil Judge in favour of the deceased father of the respondent and against the petitioner. After the death of the father of the respondent the respondent has filed execution petition in the court of the learned Civil Judge (JD) Borsad being the execution petition No. 45 of 1975. The said execution petition was filed by the respondent against the appellant petitioner as the petitioner has committed breach of the injunction which was granted against him by the learned Civil Judge (JD) Borsad in the suit filed by the deceased father of the respondent. In the said execution proceedings the above mentioned order was passed by the learned Civil Judge (JD) Borsad on 27-10-1975. In the said execution proceedings the above mentioned order was passed by the learned Civil Judge (JD) Borsad on 27-10-1975. ( 5 ) IT may be stated that after the order was passed by the learned Civil Judge (JD) Borsad the present petitioner was sent to Jail for period commencing from 19/09/1978 to 7/10/1978. It appears from the facts stated by the learned Advocate Shri S. D. Patel appearing for the petitioner that against the said order dated 27-10-1975 an appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No 127 of 1978 was filed before the District Court Kheda at Nadiad and that came to be dismissed on the point of limitation only by the order dated 27-8-1979 and against the said order a revision application being Civil Revision Application No. 327 of 1980 was filed in this Court which was also summarily dismissed. ( 6 ) IT is also pointed out that after the revision application filed in this Court came to be dismissed on 9-3-1930 an amount of Rs. 180. 00 was deposited on 21-4-1980 and the petitioner-judgment debtor was again taken into custody and committed to civil prison and thereafter the respondent having deposited the amount of Rs. 180. 00 every month the petitioner-judgment debtor was ordered to be kept in civil prison from month to month. ( 7 ) HENCE the petitioner preferred the Regular Civil Appeal No. 201 of 1980 before the District Court at Nadiad which came to be dismissed by the order dated 21-2-81. Hence the present revision application has been filed by the petitioner-judgment debtor. After the petitioners detention for six months in civil prison in execution of the decree the question arose as to whether the subsistence allowance can be accepted. The District Court asked that the subsistence allowance cannot be accepted after the expiry of six months. It appears that the learned Civil Judge (JD) also wrote a letter to the District Court on 16 and in the said letter the learned Civil Judge (JD) pointed out the order passed in Darkhast No. 85 to the effect that till further order is passed by the Court the petitioner i. e. the judgment-debtor is not to be released from jail. ( 8 ) MR. S. D. Patel the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the provisions of sec. ( 8 ) MR. S. D. Patel the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the provisions of sec. 97 of the Amending Act of 1976 old provisions of O. 21 R. 32 would apply and hence sec. 58 of the Civil Procedure Code as it stood before the Amending Act of 1976 would be applicable. He therefore submits that no judgment debtor can be kept in civil prison for more than six months and therefore the order of keeping the petitioner in civil prison as he has in fact completed the period of six months civil imprisonment should be set aside. In the alternative he submits that assuming that old provisions of O. 21 R. 32 CPC may not be made applicable and the amended provisions of sec. S8 of the CPC are made applicable then in view of Rule 2a of Order 39 of the CPC the petitioner-judgment debtor cannot be detained for more than three months in the civil prison for the breach and/or disobedience of the injunction order of the court. ( 9 ) MR. A. J. Patel the learned Advocate appearing for the opponent submits that the order passed by the executing court as well as the lower appellate Court to keep the petitioner in custody until he gives undertaking not to commit breach of injunction are correct inasmuch as no period of detention is fixed in cases where decree of permanent injunction is to be passed under Order 21 Rule 32 of the CPC Me further submits that the Order 31 Order 32 as well as sec. 58 of the Civil Procedure Code are procedural provisions and therefore the amended provisions would be applicable even to the pending proceedings god in view of the specified language of sec. 58 of the CPC the period of six months or six weeks is applicable only to money decree and not to other decides including decree for permanent injunction. He further submits that sec. 51 of the CPC lays down different modes in which the decree of the Civil Court can be executed and one of them is of arrest and detention of the judgment debtor in civil prison and the detailed procedure is thereafter laid down in Order 21 Rule 32 of the CPC for the purpose of enforcing the decree for permanent injunction to which amended sec. 58 of CPC would not be applicable which is only meant for money decrees. ( 10 ) BOTH the learned Advocates to support of their contentions have cited certain authorities which would be referred to at the relevant time. ( 11 ) WITH a view to properly appreciate the contentions raised by the learned Advocates it is necessary to quote the relevant portions of the sections as well as orders of the unamended and amended Civil Procedure Code. In the unamended CPC after sec. 50 there is a caption Procedure in Execution. Relevant extract of sec. 51 (unamended) reads as under:51 Powers of Courts to enforce execution :- 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: (d) by appointing a receivers or (e) in such other manner as the nature of the relief granted may require;. . . . . . . . Unamended sec. 58 reads as under:58 Detention and release :- (1) Every person detained in the civil prison in execution of a decree shall be so detained - (a) where the decree is for the payment of a sum of money exceeding fifty rupees for a period of six months and (b) in any other case for a period of six weeks. Provided that he shall be released from such detention before the expiration of the said period of six months or six weeks as the case may beg- (i) on the amount mentioned in the warrant for his detention being paid to the officer in charge of the civil prison or (ii) on the decree against him being otherwise fully satisfied or (iii) on the request of the person on whose application he has been so detained or (iv) On the omission by the person on whose application he has been so detained to pay subsistence allowance: provided also that he shall not be released from such detention under clause (ii) or clause (iii) without the order of the Court. (2) A judgment debtor released from detention0 under this section shall not mercy by reason of his release be discharged from his debt but be shall not be liable to be re-arrested under the decree in execution of which he was detained in the civil prison. Sec. 59 of unamended CPC refers to release on the ground of illness and it provides that a judgment-debtor released under this section may be re-arrested but the period of his detention in the civil prison shall not in the aggregate exceed that prescribed by sec. 58. ( 12 ) ORDER 21 prescribes the orders and procedure of execution and Rule 32 thereof prescribes inter alia the mode of execution of decree for injunction where a party against whom decree for an injunction has been passed has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has wilfully failed to obey the decree may be enforced in case of a decree for injunction by his detention in civil prison or attachment of his property or by both. ( 13 ) AMENDED secs. 51 and 58 of the CPC read as under:51 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 sec. 58 where arrest and detention is permissible under that section) (d) by appointing a receiver; or (e) in such other manner as the nature of the relief granted may require: Provided that where the decree is for the payment of money execution by detention in prison shall not be ordered unless after giving the judgment-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 be local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court or (ii) has after the institution of the suit in which the decree was passed dishonestly transferred. concealed. concealed. or removed any part of this property or committed any other act of bad faith in relation to his property or (b) that the judgment-debtor has or has had since the date of they 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 or (c) that the decree is for a sum for which the judgment debtor was bound in a fiduciary capacity to account. EXPLANATION: In then calculation of the means of the judgment-debtor for the purpose of clause (b) there shall be left out of account any property which be 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. 58 (1) Every person detained in the civil prison in execution of a decree shall be so detained.- (a) where the decree is for the payment of a sum of money exceeding (one thou sand rupees for a period not exceeding three months and) (b) where the decree is for the payment of sum of money exceeding (five hundred rupees but not exceeding one thousand rupees for a period not exceeding six weeks) Provided that be shall be released from such detention before the expiration of the said period of detention. (i) On the amount mentioned in the warrant for his detention being paid to the officer in charge of the civil prison or (ii) on the decree against him being otherwise fully satisfied or (iii) on the request of the person on whose application he has been so detained or (iv) on the omission by the person on whose application he has been so detained - to pay subsistence allowance: Provided also that he shall not be released from such detention under clause (ii) or clause (iii) without the order of the Court. (2) A For the removal or 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 time total amount of the decree does not exceed five hundred rupees. (2) A For the removal or 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 time total amount of the decree does not exceed five hundred rupees. (2) A judgment-debtor released from detention under this section shall not merely by reason of his release be discharged from his debt but he shall not be liable to be re-arrested under the decree in execution of which he was detained in the civil prison. Section 59 of the CPC is the same as unamended. Order 21 Rule 32 of the Amended CPC is also the same as the old one except in sub- rule (3) instead of one year it is made six months after the amendment. ( 14 ) MERE perusal of sec. 58 of the CPC as it was prior to the amendment i. e. before the Amendment Act of 1976 it is clear that sec 58 prescribes the period for detaining a person in civil prison in respect of any decree including the money decree. Clause (a) of sub- sec. (1) of sec. 58 provides for the money decree exceeding fifty-rupees a period of six months while in any other case the period which is prescribed is for six weeks. It is pertinent to note that in clause (b) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 58 the words used are in any other case which may include money decree of less than Rs. 50. 00 and also other decrees like decree for specific performance decree for injunction etc. Perusal of clauses (i) and (ii) of the proviso to sub-sec. (1) of sec. 58 clearly indicates that clause (b) thereof is Dot restricted to the money decree of less than Rs. 50. 00 because these clauses may be applicable to the decrees for specific performance as well as those for the injunctions besides money decrees. Clause (ii) speaks about the release of the judgment-debtor so detained before the expiration of six mouths or six weeks on the decree against him being otherwise fully satisfied. When the decree for specific performance is executed by executing a conveyance and delivery possession of the suit property through the Court otherwise than the decree is satisfied and therefore person detained to be released before the expiry of the period of six weeks. When the decree for specific performance is executed by executing a conveyance and delivery possession of the suit property through the Court otherwise than the decree is satisfied and therefore person detained to be released before the expiry of the period of six weeks. Similarly for the reasons best known to the decree holder he may request the judgment debtor of any other decree to be released earlier before the expiry of the prescribed period. It is also provided in sub-sec. (33 of sec. 59 of the CPC that where a judgment debtor has been committed to the civil prison he may be released therefrom by the State Government on the ground of existence of any infectious or contegious disease or by the committing Court or any Court to which that Court is subordinate on the ground of his suffering from any serious illness This sub-sec. (3) empowers the Court as mentioned therein to release the judgment debtor after his detention in the civil prison on the ground of illness. It is therefore clear that that provision is also not confined to only money decree. Reading the section as a whole along with other relevant sections of the CPC it is clear that sec. 58 provides the maximum period of detention in the civil prison for all types of decrees. ( 15 ) MR. S. D. Patel the learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that in this case the learned Judge has passed the order in the execution proceedings in the year 1975 when there was no amendment and as per the said order the judgment-debtor i. e. the present petitioner was detained in the civil prison When that order was passed as there was no amendment he submits that in view of the provisions of clause (q) of sec. 97 of the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act 1976 the old provisions would apply. The relevant portion of sec. 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 1976 reads as under:97 Repeal and savings. (1 ). . . . . . . . . . . (2) Notwithstanding that the provisions of this act have come into force or the repeal under sub-sec ) has taken effect and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sec. 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897 : (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) Notwithstanding that the provisions of this act have come into force or the repeal under sub-sec ) has taken effect and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sec. 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897 : (a ). . . . . . . . . (q) the provisions of rules 31 32 48 57 to 59 90 and 97 to 103 of Order XXI of the First Schedule as amended or as the case may be substituted or inserted by sec. 72 of this Act shall not apply to or effect: (i) any attachment subsisting immediately before the commencement of the said sec. 72 or (ii) any suit instituted before such commencement under Rule 63 aforesaid to establish right to attached property or under Rule 103 aforesaid to establish possessions or (iii) any proceeding to set aside the sale of any immovable property and every such attachment suit or proceeding shall be continued as if the said sec. 72 had not come into force; ( 16 ) ON perusal of this section it is clear that the case of the present petitioner does not come under any of the said three categories as described in clause (q) of sec. 97 of the Amendment Act of 1976 because when the order was passed by the executing court for arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor in civil prison in execution of the decree it is not the case for attachment subsisting immediately before the commencement of this Act. Similarly it is not suit under Rule 63 or Rule 103 of Order 21 or it is not a proceeding to set aside the sale of immovable property. In that view of the matter when the Amendment Act of 1976 came into force the amended provisions would apply from the date on which it came into force. However it would not make any difference so far as the applicability of Order 21 Rule 32 of the CPC is concerned because there is no such material amendment except as stated above in Order 21 Rule 32 clause (3) and that amendment is not relevant for the present case ( 17 ) ON the basis of this submission of applying the provisions of unamended Order 21 Rule 32 to the present case Mr. S. D. Patel further submitted that sec. S. D. Patel further submitted that sec. 58 of the CPC as it was unamended would apply to the present proceedings. I would like to make it clear that on perusal of sec. 97 of the Amendment Act of 1976 there is no provision saving the judgment debtor from the effect of the Amendment Act and sec. 58 of the CPC after amendment is placed in the cluster of secs. 55 to 58 under the caption of arrest and detention which is further provided in the caption of procedure in execution from sec. 51 onwards. Section 51 prescribes procedure of execution providing different modes in which the decree can be executed and one of the modes is by arrest and detention of the judgment debtor in civil prison. Section 58 after amendment provides under what type of decrees the judgment debtor would be arrested and detained in civil prison for the prescribed period. ( 18 ) IN that view of the matter the argument of Mr. S. D. Patel the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the unamended provisions of sec 58 of the CPC would apply to the present case has no force particularly because it is a part of the procedural law and that procedure would apply at the time when it comes into force. ( 19 ) ON this point Mr. A. J. Patel the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent has pointed out the judgment in the case of Raja Reddy v. Ansuyamma AIR 1977 A. P. 342 wherein it is observed that the amendment to the Civil Procedure Code is normally to be considered retrospective. In the said case it was argued that though most of the provisions of the CPC are the provisions relating to procedure the above principle is not applicable to the case. The Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court did not agree and it observed that an application for arrest and detention in civil prison is only one of the modes of execution of decree. It is true that the legislature has provided that the total period of detention in civil prison cannot exceed a particular period and therefore held that amendment of the CPC even in regard to the period of detention could be considered as an amendment to the provision relating to procedure and would have retrospective effect and will apply to pending actions. I entirely agree with the view of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. In that view of the matter the argument of Mr. S. D. Patel that the amended provisions of the CPC should not be made applicable to the present case cannot be accepted particularly when the question of acceptance of subsistence allowance has arisen in October 1980 when the judgment-debtor has completed six months detention in civil prison. ( 20 ) MR. S. D. Patel has submitted in the alternative that when the new procedure is to be made applicable it is provided in Order 39 Rule 2-A that when there is any breach or disobedience of any injunction such person can be detained to civil prison for a period not exceeding three months. It may be stated that Rule 2-A is a part of Order 39. Order 39 applies to temporary injunctions and interlocutory orders. Injunctions can be issued either under Order 39 Rule 1 or Rule 2 and therefore the words any injunction are used in Rule 2-A. However if these two words any injunction are read divorced from the context it may appear that it may include not only injunction granted under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 but it may also include the decree for permanent injunction. It is therefore necessary to quote relevant portion of Order 39 Rule 2-A which reads as under:2 (1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under rule 1 or rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made the Court granting the injunction or making the order or any Court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months unless in the meantime the Court directs his release. Normally when the temporary injunctions are granted they would be continued till the disposal of the suits and therefore such temporary injunctions have the span of life till the suits are disposed of and therefore the period of detention is prescribed at three months. Normally when the temporary injunctions are granted they would be continued till the disposal of the suits and therefore such temporary injunctions have the span of life till the suits are disposed of and therefore the period of detention is prescribed at three months. The express language of Rule 2a of Order 39 if read in proper context it would make it clear that it is only in respect of temporary injunction which is granted either Rule 1 or Rule 2 and if breach thereof is committed then the consequence would follow as mentioned in Rule 2a. Therefore the argument that it would also include permanent injunction granted at the time of passing the decree to totally misconceived. Therefore that argument cannot be accepted. . ( 21 ) WHEN that is so the next question would be whether the amended provisions of sec. 58 prescribe the period for detention or not in the decrees other than money decree. On persual of sec. 58 after amendment and particularly clauses (a) and (b) of sub-sec. (1) it is clear that both the said clauses speak only about the decree for payment of money. One clause prescribes the limit exceeding Rs. 1 0 while the other prescribes the limit exceeding Rs. 500. 00. It is therefore clear that the limitations provided in clauses (a) and (b) apply to only money decrees and not to other decrees. There is no other section which provides the period of limitation. ( 22 ) ON this point Mr. A. J. Patel the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent has pointed out the judgment in the case of suba Singh and Others v. Bagicha Singh AIR 1980 Punjab and Harayana 62 In the said case the facts were similar to the present case as there also it was a decree for permanent injunction which was to be executed by arrest and detention of the judgment debtor in civil prison. After repelling the argument that no order of detention could be passed under Order 21 Rule 32 (1) of the Code it is observed in the said case that wherever the detention is provided under the Code by way of penalty as a consequence of disobedience of any order maximum period for detention has been provided such as under Order 39 Rule 2 (A) Similarly where detention is sought as provided under Order 21 Rule 37 of the Code of the execution of the money decree maximum period has been provided under sec. 58 and the reason is obvious. Even if a person is detained in civil prison he may not be able to satisfy the money decree against him and for that reason he cannot be detained in civil prison for an indefinite period. Therefore the legislature in its wisdom has provided the maximum period of detention for that purpose as well. Order 21 Rule 32 (1) is for the enforcement of the decree for an injunction etc. and therefore the question of providing any maximum period in the nature of things does not arise. The person detained will be released as soon as he satisfies the decree against him that is the wrong done by him is undone which is within his powers to do. He cannot be allowed in plead his own fault in his defence. Thus the said judgment also makes it clear that no period for detention is prescribed when the judgment-debtor is to be arrested and detained in civil prison in enforcement of the decree for permanent injunction under Order 21 Rule 32 of the CPC I entirely agree with the aforesaid reasoning on the said decision ( 23 ) BEFORE parting with this judgment it may be stated that Shri S. D Patel the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has also relied on the judgment in the case of ghanshamdas Goorsamull v. Joharimull Kedarinath VII (I. L. R.) Bombay 431. In the said case after considering the relevant sections of the Civil Procedure Code Act (XIV of 1882) and particularly secs. 481 342 and 336. In the said case after considering the relevant sections of the Civil Procedure Code Act (XIV of 1882) and particularly secs. 481 342 and 336. Their Lordships were of the opinion that in execution of the decree when the judgment debtor is to be sent to jail the maximum period would for six months and if he was not actually detained for six months he can be re-arrested till he completes the entire period of six months detention. However subsequently in the Act of 1908 the position is made clear that when the judgment debtor is released from detention under this sec. 58 he shall not be liable to be re-arrested under the decree in execution of which he was detained in civil prison. In that view of the matter the said judgment is not useful to the petitioners case in view of the amendment made in the provisions of sec. 58 of the CPC by virtue of Amendment Act 1976 ( 24 ) MR. S. D. Patel has lastly referred to the AIR Commentaries on the Civil Procedure Code on sec. 58 and he pointed out to me that there is one judgment of the Rajasthan High Court on this point but he could not get the entire judgment and therefore he has pointed out only the note which reads as under;1965 Rajasthan L. W. 466 (467) Breach of decree of permanent injunction under - Order 21 Rule 32 (1) detention under sec. 58 (1) (b) for period beyond six weeks is not legal. In view of what I have stated above his submission on this point is correct and the judgment reported in VII (I. L. R.) Bombay also speaks the same thing. I have also construed sec. 58 of the CPC as it stood before Amendment and I have held that it speaks about the period of detention in respect of all the decrees including money decrees and therefore there is no question of doubting the ratio of the above mentioned Rajasthan judgment but that would not be applicable in view of the fact that the provisions of the amended CPC would apply to the present case and therefore there is no period for detention fixed for enforcing the decrees of permanent injunction. ( 25 ) IN above view of the matter the revision application deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. ( 25 ) IN above view of the matter the revision application deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Rule is accordingly discharged with no order as to costs. It is clarified that if at all the petitioner wants to challenge in future his order of detention in any other proceeding on any other ground excepting the points which are decided in this revision application he would be at liberty to do so. Application dismissed. .