ORDER Pareed Pillay, J. 1. Revision Petitioner judgment debtor challenges the order in EP 779 of 1984 in OS 261 of 1984 of the Munsiff Court, Trichur. Respondent decree holder filed the EP for realisation of the decree amount. Pursuant to the notice revision petitioner filed objection pleading no means and at the same time offering to pay the decree amount in instalments of Rs. 75 per month. The executing Court directed the revision petitioner to pay the entire balance amount and made it clear that on failure to do so arrest warrant will be issued. 2. Main contention of the revision petitioner is that the executing court went wrong in passing the impugned order without conducting an enquiry as to his means. It is urged that the mandatory requirements of S.51 CPC has been completely overlooked by the executing Court and this has resulted in an illegal exercise of jurisdiction. 3. The question that has to be considered is as to whether the court was justified in passing the impugned order without making any enquiry particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner filed objection stating that he does not have the means to pay the decree debt. S.51(c) empowers the court to order execution by arrest and detention in prison of the judgment debtor. The proviso to S.51 makes it clear 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. 4. Admittedly the petitioner was served with notice under O.21 R.37. O.21 R.37 provides that in an application for execution of a decree for the payment of money by the arrest and detention in the civil prison of a judgment debtor who is liable to be arrested in pursuance of the application, the court shall instead of issuing a warrant for his arrest issue a notice calling upon him to appear before the court and show cause why he should not be committed to the civil prison. The proviso is to the effect that such notice shall not be necessary if the court is satisfied, by affidavit, or otherwise, that, with the object or effect of delaying the execution of the decree, the judgment debtor is likely to abscond or leave the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court. O.21, R.37(2) makes the position very clear that if the judgment debtor does not enter appearance in obedience to the notice, the court shall on the motion of the decree holder issue warrant for his arrest. O.21, R.40 enumerates the proceedings to be followed on appearance of judgment debtor in obedience to the notice or after arrest. The above Order enjoins the court to proceed to hear the decree holder and take all such evidences as may be produced by him in support of his application for execution. The court shall then give the judgment debtor an opportunity of showing cause why he should not be committed to the civil prison. A judgment debtor who is served with notice under O.21, R.37 on making his appearance before the court is entitled to file his objection that he is not liable to be arrested. This right is also available to a judgment debtor who has been brought before the court under arrest. 5. The initial burden is on the decree holder to substantiate his contention in support of the execution application. After adducing the necessary evidence by the decree holder the court has to give an opportunity to the judgment debtor to show cause why be should not be committed to civil prison. O.21, R.49(2) states that pending the conclusion of the enquiry the court may. in its discretion, order the judgment debtor to be detained in the custody of an officer of the court or release him on his furnishing security to the satisfaction of the court for his appearance when required. O.21, R.40(3) envisages that upon the conclusion of the inquiry the court may, subject to the provisions of S.51 and to the other provisions of the code make an order for the detention of the judgment debtor in the civil prison and shall in that event cause him to be arrested if he is not already under arrest. 6. O.21, R.40(3) envisages that upon the conclusion of the inquiry the court may, subject to the provisions of S.51 and to the other provisions of the code make an order for the detention of the judgment debtor in the civil prison and shall in that event cause him to be arrested if he is not already under arrest. 6. In this case the judgment debtor was served with notice under O.21, R.37 and he filed objection stating that he has no means to pay the decree debt. There is no finding by the executing court after enquiry as contemplated under S.51 that the judgment debtor has or has had since the date of decree the means to pay the decree debt or some substantial part thereof and refuses or neglects or has refused or neglected to pay the same. As O.21, R.37 specifically provides for issuance of notice calling upon the judgment debtor to show cause why he should not be committed to civil prison and as O.21, R.40 provides for an enquiry into the matter the impugned order without enquiry is not sustainable. As the petitioner in unequivocal terms contended that he has no means to pay the decree amount when he received O.21, R.37 notice it was really necessary on the part of the executing Court to have conducted an enquiry before ordering him to be arrested. 7. The order of the court below does not even show that the affidavit filed by the respondent in support of the execution petition for the arrest and detention of judgment debtor was even considered. As the court passed the order without an enquiry despite the judgment debtor filing objection that he has no means to pay the decree-debt it has to be necessarily held that the order is not in accordance with law. The order of the court below is hereby set aside and the court is directed to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law. The civil revision petition stands allowed There is no order as to costs.