JUDGMENT Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) - The petitioner decree holder is aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Executing Court on 27.09.2003 whereby her application for arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor in civil prison was dismissed. 2. Suit for possession filed by the decree holder was decreed by the learned trial court on 6.2.2001. The first Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on 12.1.2002 against the said judgment and decree passed by the trial court. 3. It may be noticed that earlier vide order dated 17.2.2001 the first Appellate Court stayed operation of the judgment and decree dated 6.2.2001 passed by the trial court subject to deposit of mesne profit by defendant No. 1 for use and occupation of the premises at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month. 4. In pursuance of the order passed by the learned first appellate court on 17.2.2001, the respondent deposited rent at the rate of Rs. 540/- per month. The plaintiff challenged the said order before this Court in CR No. 2882 of 2001 wherein it was held that the plaintiff is entitled to damages at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month as mesne profit from 8.10.1997 till the date of getting the possession of the premises vide order dated 30.5.2001. Respondent has challenged the said order before the Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7873 of 2001 wherein the execution of the decree was stayed subject to payment of Rs. 5000/- per month in terms of the decree. The respondent was granted 4 weeks time to make deposit vide order dated 9.11.2001. The respondent has deposited the said amount of Rs. 5000/- in terms of the said order of the Honble Supreme Court. However, the first appeal was dismissed on 12.1.2002. 5. Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court is pending before this court wherein earlier the execution of the decree was stayed subject to deposit of Rs. 10,000/- per month for use and occupation of the premises as mesne profit vide order dated 9.4.2002. Since the defendant has not deposited the said amount, the stay granted on 9.4.2002 was vacated vide order dated 27.5.2003 passed in Civil Misc. No. 5850 C of 2003. 10,000/- per month for use and occupation of the premises as mesne profit vide order dated 9.4.2002. Since the defendant has not deposited the said amount, the stay granted on 9.4.2002 was vacated vide order dated 27.5.2003 passed in Civil Misc. No. 5850 C of 2003. The respondent judgment-debtor has challenged the order of grant of conditional stay dated 9.4.2002 before the Honble Supreme Court, however, said Special Leave Petition No. 9437 of 2002 was dismissed on 9.5.2002. 6. Since the respondent has not deposited mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- and the stay was vacated by this court, the plaintiff decree holder has obtained possession of the premises on 19.7.2002. However, the petitioner has sought the recovery of balance mesne profit by arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor. The said application has been dismissed by the learned Executing Court on 27.9.2003. The Executing Court dismissed the said application on the ground that the decree holder has not been able to satisfactorily established or satisfy the Executing Court that the conditions contained in the provisions of Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) stand satisfied. 7. This revision petition came up for hearing before this court on 13.1.2004 when the respondent was ordered to be served at his Karnal address as well as his last known address of Chandigarh. Notice was also ordered to be issued to Shri SPS Bhullar, learned counsel representing the judgment-debtor before the execution Court. As per the report on the summons, the process issued at his Karnal address, has been received by his brother whereas the notice of the revision petition has been received by Shri Bhullar Advocate representing the judgment-debtor in the trial court. However, none has appeared on behalf of the respondent. Therefore, the respondent is proceeded ex parte. 8. The petitioner has produced certified copy of the reply to the application for the arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor dated 12.12.2002 as well as the amended reply to the said application dated 14.5.2003. Said certified copies are taken on in record. A perusal of the said reply shows that the respondent has stated in reply to para No. 4 that the residential address of the judgment-debtor is given in court but again it was reiterated as House No. 90 Model Town, Karnal. Said certified copies are taken on in record. A perusal of the said reply shows that the respondent has stated in reply to para No. 4 that the residential address of the judgment-debtor is given in court but again it was reiterated as House No. 90 Model Town, Karnal. Still further it has been stated that the judgment- debtor has sufficient property at Karnal which can be attached if so desired by the decree holder. Paras No. 4 and 5 of the reply read as under : "4. That para No. 4 is wrong and hence denied. It is submitted that the residential address of the JD has already been given in the court and again it is being given as House No. 90, Model Town, Karnal. 5. That para No. 5 is a matter of record, as already explained in the preliminary objection that the regular second appeal is pending before Honble High Court and almost 50 per cent of the total amount has already been paid and the JD will make the payment of remaining amount after the decision of the appeal pending in the Honble High Court. Moreover, the JD has sufficient property at Karnal which can be attached if so desired by the Decree Holder as per law." 9. In the amended reply dated 14.5.2003, the respondent has reiterated such averments. 10. The decree holder is entitled to seek execution of the decree by arrest and detention in prison in terms of the provisions contained in Section 51 CPC. Section 55 provides for arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor in execution of the decree in civil prison. Section 58 provides for detention of judgment-debtor if the decree is for payment of a sum exceeding Rs. 5000/- for a period not exceeding 3 months. Sections 51 of the Code read follows :- "51. Powers of Court to enforce execution. Section 55 provides for arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor in execution of the decree in civil prison. Section 58 provides for detention of judgment-debtor if the decree is for payment of a sum exceeding Rs. 5000/- for a period not exceeding 3 months. Sections 51 of the Code read follows :- "51. Powers of Court 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 the 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) 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 the local limit of the jurisdiction of the Court, or (ii) 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, or (b) 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, or (c) 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." 11. 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." 11. Order 21 Rule 37 of the Code contemplates that notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, where an application is for the 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, instead of issuing a warrant for his arrest, issue a notice calling upon him to appear before the Court. However, such notice is not 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. Order 21 Rule 40 provides for proceedings on appearance of judgment- debtor in obedience to notice or after arrest. 12. While interpreting provisions of Order 21 Rule 40 and Section 51 of the Code, this Court in Tehal Singh v. Shivji Ram, 1985(2) PLR 565, has held that the Executing Court can order the execution of a decree by arrest and detention in prison of the judgment-debtor if it is satisfied that (i) judgment-debtor with the object of delaying the execution of the decree is likely to abscond or leave the local jurisdiction of the court; (ii) has after the institution of the suit in which the decree was passed, dishonestly transferred or concealed any part of his property or committed any other act of bad faith in relation to that, or (iii) that the judgment-debtor has had since the date of decree the means to pay the amount of the decree or substantial part thereof or refuses or neglects or has refused or neglected to pay the same. 13. Learned Executing Court has declined the application of the decree holder on the ground that the decree holder has not been able to satisfactorily establish the condition contained in the provisions of Section 51 of the Code. 14. 13. Learned Executing Court has declined the application of the decree holder on the ground that the decree holder has not been able to satisfactorily establish the condition contained in the provisions of Section 51 of the Code. 14. From a perusal of the case set up by the petitioner it is evident that the respondent judgment-debtor has left local limits of the jurisdiction of the Executing Court. Such action is with a view to abscond and delay the execution of the decree. It is further evident from the reply that he has means to pay the decree and that the decree is for a sum for which he is bound in a fiduciary capacity to account. 15. In reply itself it is admitted by the judgment-debtor that he has shifted to Karnal i.e. beyond the local limits of jurisdiction of the court. Respondent has also stated in para No. 5 of the reply that he has sufficient property at Karnal against which the decree holder may seek attachment. The decree is against the judgment-debtor is again not disputed, therefore, the conditions specified in Section 51 of the Code are fully satisfied. 16. The petitioner has pointed out that, infact, the respondent judgment- debtor is owning one Ford Ikon Car bearing Registration No. HR-5B-0007 and that he has disposed of one Maruti Car and Motor Cycle. The petitioner may give particulars and details of such property to the learned Executing Court for appropriate proceedings in accordance with the law. In view of above, the order passed by the learned Executing Court is not sustainable. The conditions specified under section 51 of the Code are satisfied. The order passed by the learned Executing Court suffers from material illegality and irregularity warranting interference by this court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 17. Consequently, the order dated 27.9.2003 passed by the Executing Court is set aside. The Executing Court is directed to execute the decree by arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor in accordance with the law. Revision petition is, thus, allowed with no order as to costs. Petition allowed.