1. Decree dated: 23.08.1987 for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent, of District judge Srinagar is put to execution in E.P.No.17 of 97 on the file of District Judge. So far as eject­ment part is concerned, decree stands executed. However, the execution of the decree, for re­covery of outstanding rent, the decrental amount, is in process. During pendency of the execution petition, decree holder moved an ap­plication on 31.05.2000, for arrest and deten­tion in prison of the two partners of the firm, the judgment-debtors. The executing court of District Judge, srinagar, on the very day ordered arrest and detention in civil prison of these judg­ment debtors and for the purpose issued war­rant of arrest. This order of 31.05.2000 is un­der challenge in this revision petition. 2. The impugned order is challenged in main on the ground that the order is mechani­cal, in so far as on the very day and date of 31.05.2000 when application for arrest and de­tention of judgment debtors in civil prison was moved, the court without any notice and with­out following the requirements of law, passed the order, on just askance for, to arrest and de­tain the Judgment debtors and for the purpose issued wan-ant. Neither the Judgment debtors were served notice as required under law not executing court applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case to find out if the case was fit for issuing a warrant to lodge the judg­ment debtors in civil prison to realize the decretal amount. Even the liability of the judg­ment debtors for payment was not determined in so far as the judgment debtors had raised and placed on record objection that some payments had already been made. 3. Mr. G.A. Lone, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has reiterated the above grounds in his submission before the court. He stressed that the impugned order suffers from material irregularity and error of jurisdiction in so far as neither any notice was served on judg­ment debtors nor circumstances existed to merit dispensation of notice and issuing of war­rant for arrest and detention. The case has not been addressed on legal and factual counts, resuiting in breach of provisions of Section 51 and order 21 Rule 37 of C.P.C. 4. Mr. The case has not been addressed on legal and factual counts, resuiting in breach of provisions of Section 51 and order 21 Rule 37 of C.P.C. 4. Mr. A.K. Malik, Learned counsel for de­cree holder canvases that the execution petition has been filed within one year and even notice need not to be served on the judgment debtors. Besides in the execution petition decree holder has in addition to the mode of attachment of moveable property of judgment debtors, also prayed for their detention in civil prison. The contention of the judgment debtors that they have made some payments outside the court could not be taken into account by the court in view of provisions of order 21 Rule 2(3) of CPC. The order does not suffer from any legal infir­mity or jurisdictional error, therefore, the coun­sel prays for dismissal of the revision petition. 5. From record of District Judge Srinagar, the Court where execution proceedings are pending, it is seen that after the execution peti­tion was presented on 29.11.1997, notice has-, gone to the judgment debtors and after initially appearing, parties sought time at one stage for settlement of the matter, but on reporting fail­ure of the conciliatory attempt, the matter could not make any headway on that count. Objec­tions were filed by the judgment debtors on 01.06.1999. The court again gave time on 03.09.99 to judgment debtors to make payment, before the court ordered attachment of move-able property to the extent of decretal amount of the judgment debtors vide order dated: 26.02.2000. Thereafter, while proceedings of attachment of the moveable property was in process of implementation and under report of Nazir Tamilat, decree holders leaving this mode halfway moved an application on 31.05.2000 for arrest and detention in civil prison of the judgment debtors to force them to make pay­ments of the decretal amount. The grounds taken in the application cover history of the case and execution petition besides alleged hobnobing of judgment debtors with the Nazir Tameelat to delay and thwart the attempt to at­tach the immoveable property of the judgment debtors. Decree holders have stated that the only alternative for them to satisfy the decree is to move the executing court for arrest and de­tention of the judgment debtors in the civil prison. Decree holders have stated that the only alternative for them to satisfy the decree is to move the executing court for arrest and de­tention of the judgment debtors in the civil prison. Strangley enough without issuing notice to the judgment debtors and without satis­fying itself of the allegation of Nazir Tameelat hobnobing with the judgment debtors to defeat the decree by not attaching the property, the executing court on the very day when applica­tion was moved before it (31.05.2000) pro­ceeded to record an order with direction to ar­rest and detain the judgment debtors in civil prison by issuance of warrant of arrest with fur­ther direction to the concerned police station to render assistance to the Nazir for execution of the warrant. 6. A money decree is to be executed either by payment of the decretal money or by attach­ment or sale of property of the judgment debtor(s) or his detention in civil prison or by both. In this case though orders for attachment of moveable property of judgment debtors stood issued and the orders of execution of decree by attachment of property was under process and in progress and report of Nazir Tameelat, was awaited. The executing court did not allow this mode of execution to move forward to its ligicalend. It was abandoned in between. The executing court failed to record if attachment was not possible or the allegation of hobnobing of Nazir Tameelat with judgment debtors was true or untrue. The executing court on the ap­plication of the decree holder straightway pro­ceeded to order arrest and detention of judg­ment debtors in civil prison and issued a war­rant in violation of mandatory provisions of law and in breach of codal provisions. 7. Section 51 of the Code provides mode of execution of the decree. Proviso added to the Section by Act No.4 of 1995 lays out the pre-requisite for detention of judgment debtor(s) in prison, while order 21 Rule 37(1) lays down procedure, where application is made for enforcement of execution by detention of the judgment debtor(s), in prison. 7. Section 51 of the Code provides mode of execution of the decree. Proviso added to the Section by Act No.4 of 1995 lays out the pre-requisite for detention of judgment debtor(s) in prison, while order 21 Rule 37(1) lays down procedure, where application is made for enforcement of execution by detention of the judgment debtor(s), in prison. It provides that where the judgment debtor(s) is liable to be arrested pursuant to the application for ar­rest and detention in civil prison, the court in­stead of issuing a warrant for arrest straightway shall issue a notice calling upon judgment debtor(s) to appear before the court on a date to be specified in the notice and show cause why he/they should not be committed to civil prison. The word shall has been substituted and added by Act 6 of 95 to the code for the word may, thereby making the provision man­datory. However, the proviso to Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 37 provides that it shall not be necessary to issue notice 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. A combined reading of the two expressions oc­curring in Sub Rule 1 of Rule 37 and proviso to Section 51, to show that before judgment debtors are ordered to be detained in prison and for the purpose warrant is issued, the judgment debtors have to be given a notice and an op­portunity to show cause why he or they should not be committed to prison and for the purpose the court is to record its reasons in writing and be satisfied thereto. The only exception to this Rule is when the judgment debtor(s) with the object or purpose of obstructing or delaying the execution of the decree is/are likely to abscond or leave the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court after the institution of the suit, or within one year prior to the institution of the suit in which decree is passed, dis-honestly transferred, concealed or removed any part of his property or commit any other act of bad faith in relation to his property. Further, pre-detention notice and opportunity to show cause is waived, if the court is satisfied on conditions provided in the proviso that the judgment debtor(s) has/have since the date of the decree means to pay the amount of the decree or some substantial part thereof and refuse or neglects to pay the same. Obviously, mere prayer for execution of the decree for payment of money by arrest or detention in the civil prison of judg­ment debtor(s) does not attract the main part of Sub Rule 1 of order 37 of order 21 of the Code. The judgment debtor should be liable to be ar­rested on the cause shown and pleaded in the petition. Judgment debtor cannot be arrested as a matter of course in a mechanical manner in execution of the money decree for lodgment in civil prison as it involves human dignity aspect and curtails the freedom and liberty of a person as observed in Jully George Varghesa and Anr. vs. The Bank of Chochin (AIR 1980 SC 470). The prayer of detention of judgment debor, cannot be upheld unless the circumstances enumer­ated in clauses (a) to (c) of proviso to Section 51 of the Code exist or are satisfied. 8. In this case admittedly the petitioners case does not fall within clause (a) or (c) of pro­viso to Section 51 of the Code. To examine the question whether the case falls within the con­fines of clause (b) of the proviso to Section 51, the executing court was under judicial duty to record his satisfaction with reasons after giv­ing the judgment debtors opportunity to show cause on notice that since the date of decree despite petitioner having means to pay the amount of decree or substantial part thereof, the judgment debtors(s) refused or neglected to pay the amount. This has not been done. Mere mention of just one sentence that the judgment debtor(s) have not asserted that "they do not have the means to defrey and satisfy the decree" would not suffice. It is not for the judgment debtor(s) to assert and for the court to assume that the judgment debtor(s) had no means to pay the decretal amount. Mere mention of just one sentence that the judgment debtor(s) have not asserted that "they do not have the means to defrey and satisfy the decree" would not suffice. It is not for the judgment debtor(s) to assert and for the court to assume that the judgment debtor(s) had no means to pay the decretal amount. The legal requirement is that the executing court has to record in writ­ing the reasons and be satisfied that the judg­ment debtor(s) has/have despite the means to pay the decretal amount or substantial part thereof, since the inception of the decree, re­fused or neglected to pay the same. Interest­ingly it is noted that the judgment debtor(s) objections on record claiming payment towards the decretal amount has not been addressed to and no definite finding is recorded on this as­pect of this case, notwithstanding the decree holders submission before this court that the decretal amount can be paid only in the mode and manner prescribed by the Code which interalia provides that the payment of amount outside the court has to be certified to the court by the decree holder. The execution proceed­ings for attachment of the property of the peti­tioner were under process and in progress and the Nazir Tameelat was under directions to at­tach the moveable property, the executing court left this mode of realization of the amount half­way and without waiting for the outcome of this mode of realisation of the decretal amount, switched over on just askance for, to order ar­rest and detention of persons of the judgment debtor(s) by issuance of warrant. Without expressly commenting on the allegation of the decree holders that the Nazir Tameelats inac­tion is in collusion with the judgment debtor(s) and thereby decree hoders conclusion that there is no chance of getting the decree satis­fied by the mode of attachment and sale of the moveable property of the judgment debtors, the arrest and detention (simultaneously) in civil prison of judgment debtor(s) is wholly bad. In such circumstances it can not be said that the mandate of law, of existence of prima facie case, and satisfaction of the court with reasons in writing as prescribed by Section 51 and order 21 Rule 37 of the Code, has been complied with. 9. In such circumstances it can not be said that the mandate of law, of existence of prima facie case, and satisfaction of the court with reasons in writing as prescribed by Section 51 and order 21 Rule 37 of the Code, has been complied with. 9. Again the other material irregularity committed is that no notice has been issued and no opportunity as prescribed by the above pro­visions of the code has been given to the judg­ment debtor(s) as pre-cursor to the issuance of warrants for their arrest and detention in civil prison. Judgment Debtors arrest and deten­tion, simultaneously straightway for non-ful­filment of decretal obligation is bad and in vio­lation of law. The order for arrest and deten­tion appears to have been issued on just askance for in a mechanical fashion without addressing to the legal requirements, core issue and factually aspects of the case. If the law requires an action to be taken or powers to be exercised in a certain prescribed manner and mode that ac­tion has to be taken or powers to be exercised only in that prescribed mode and manner. 10. Reference can be made with benefit in the context of pre-requisite notice and opportu­nity to show cause in the light of Section 51 and order 21 Rule 37 of CPC, to Mayadhar Bhoi and Anr. vs. Moti Dibya (AIR 1984 Orrisa 162); Mukhrams case (AIR 1987 Raj.1); Jolly George Varghesa and Anr. vs. The Bank of Chochin (AIR 1980 SC: 470) and Joseph K Mathai vs. Luckoose Kurian (AIR 1979 Ker. 235). 11. In result, the failure of the executing court to apply its mind to the material provi­sions of law and the impugned order having been passed just in routine in breach of the mandate of law, thereby causing failure of jus­tice in consequence of material irregularity com­mitted, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The order is set aside. Revisions succeeds, the case is sent back to the executing court for fresh proceedings in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made hereinabove. Disposed of.