C O M M O N J U D G M E N T These two revisions are between the same parties and arise out of E.P.No.104 of 2002, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda. 2. The 1st petitioner is the father of petitioners 2, 3 and 4. The 1st respondent is the brother of the 1st petitioner, and respondents 2 and 3 are the sons of the 1st respondent. Respondents filed O.S.No.268 of 1997 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, against the petitioners for perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. The suit was decreed ex parte on 02-04-1999. The respondents filed E.P.No.104 of 2002, under order 22 Rule 32 C.P.C., alleging that despite the decree for perpetual injunction, the petitioners attempted to interfere with their possession over the suit schedule-property. 3. Petitioners 1 and 2 were set ex parte on 16-09-2003, and petitioners 3 and 4, on 22-04-2003. Thereafter, petitioners filed applications to set aside the orders dated 25-06-2002 and 16-09-2003, with application to condone the delay. On 07-08-2006 the Executing Court dismissed the applications, and issued warrant of arrest against the petitioners. On 18-09-2006 the 1st petitioner was produced in the Court, on execution of an arrest warrant. Thereupon, the Court sentenced him to undergo civil imprisonment for a period of one month. These two revisions are filed assailing the orders dated 07-08-2006 and 18-09-2006, passed by the Executing Court. 4. Sri J. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the Executing Court did not follow Rule 32 of Order 21 C.P.C., in its true spirit. He contends that arrest was ordered, without there being a finding to the effect that there was any wilful and deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioners, to flout the decree of perpetual injunction. He submits that the Executing Court did not require the respondents to discharge their burden, to prove the ingredients of Rule 32 of Order 21 C.P.C. 5. Sri M.Venkat Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that even after receiving notices in the E.P., the petitioners did not enter appearance, and that the Court was left with no alternative, except to order their arrest and other relevant steps. 6. The petitioners do not dispute that the decree for perpetual injunction passed against them has become final and is binding upon them. 6. The petitioners do not dispute that the decree for perpetual injunction passed against them has become final and is binding upon them. They, however contend that they never attempted to interfere with the possession of the respondents over the suit schedule property, and complain that the Executing Court directed their arrest without recording any finding, that there was a deliberate and wilful attempt, on the part of the petitioners, to violate the decree. Therefore, the only question that needs to be examined is, as to whether the Executing Court ensured compliance with the requirements under Rule 32 of Order 21 C.P.C., before it directed the arrest of the petitioners. Rule 32 (1) of Order 21 is relevant in this regard. It reads as under: O.21 R.32 (1): Decree for specific performance for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction: Where the party against whom a decee for the specific performance of a contract, or for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction, has been passed has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has wilfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced in the case of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights by the attachment of his property or, in the case of a decree for the specific performance of a contract or for an injunction by his detention in the civil prison or by the attachment of his property, or by both”. 7. From a perusal of the Rule, it is evident that mere existence of a decree for perpetual injunction, or for that matter, a mere complaint, by the decree-holder against the judgment-debtor, is not sufficient to direct the detention of the judgment-debtor in civil prison. Two facts are necessary to be proved by the decreeholder: In a way, they are two facets of the same phenomenon. The first is that the judgment-debtor must have an opportunity to obey the decree, and the second is that despite such an opportunity, he had wilfully failed to obey it. To state in different terms, mere failure of a judgment-debtor to obey the decree, when he did not have an opportunity to do so; cannot constitute a ground to order his detention in civil prison. Similarly, if the failure is not willful, the Executing Court can not direct his detention, notwithstanding that the judgment-debtor had an opportunity to obey the decree. Similarly, if the failure is not willful, the Executing Court can not direct his detention, notwithstanding that the judgment-debtor had an opportunity to obey the decree. Both the facts must be proved. By their very nature, they need to be established through sufficient evidence, to the satisfaction of the Court. The fact that the judgment-debtor remained, or was set ex parte, does not relieve the decree-holder, of his obligation and burden, to prove the ingredients of Rule 32. 8. In the instant case, the allegation made by the respondents in their E.P. is that the petitioners herein tried to interfere their possession, when they were ploughing the land. The date of alleged interference is not mentioned clearly. The person, who is said to have interfered; is not named. The petitioners were set ex parte. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, to set aside the same, they stated inter alia that the 1st petitioner is an aged person; petitioners 2 and 3 are living at a different place, on account of their employment, and that the 4th petitioner was not even in the village, since he is pursuing his studies elsewhere. The trial Court dismissed the applications to set aside the orders, setting the petitioners ex parte. The order dated 07-08-2006 passed by it reads as under: “E.As. dismissed. Heard. Issue warrant against Judgment Debtors, call on 18.9.2006.” 9. On 18-09-2006, the 1st petitioner was produced. The order passed against him, on 18-09-2006, reads as under: “Judgment Debtor No.1 produced by the Bailiff on execution of arrest warrant. Judgment Debtor No.1 remained ex-party in the above E.P. as he did not file counter and consequently an arrest warrant was issued under Order 21 Rule 32 of Code of Civil Procedure, for disobedience of decree passed against him in O.S.No.268/1997. Hence, the Judgment Debtor No.1 is sentenced to Civil imprisonment for a period of one month subject to payment of necessary batta by the decree holder”. 10. The record does not disclose that the respondents have adduced any evidence, to prove their contention. Even if the petitioners remained ex parte, the respondents were under obligation to state and prove the nature of interference by the petitioners. 10. The record does not disclose that the respondents have adduced any evidence, to prove their contention. Even if the petitioners remained ex parte, the respondents were under obligation to state and prove the nature of interference by the petitioners. The Executing Court did not record any finding to the effect that there was any interference by the petitioners with the possession of the respondents over the suit schedule property, and that such interference was wilful, and even after having an opportunity to obey the decree. 11. Whatever may be the justification for an Executing Court to proceed ex parte, in the matter of attachment of properties, or bringing them to sale, a different approach is warranted, when it comes to the question of directing detention of the judgmentdebtors. Since the personal liberty of the judgment-debtors is involved, strict compliance with the relevant provisions becomes mandatory. The procedure prescribed under Rules 37 to 40 of Order 21 C.P.C., in the context of arrest and detention of a judgment-debtor in the civil prison provides ample guidance. The said Rules mandate that, where the decree-holder, in a money decree, insisted on detention of the judgment-debtor, in civil prison, the question as to whether the latter had sufficient means to comply with the decree; has to be proved by the former, in the Court, that too, in the presence of the latter. A bare perusal of Rule 40 of Order 21, makes this aspect clear. 12. Once the judgment-debtor is produced before the Court, the fact that he remained ex parte on earlier occasion virtually becomes irrelevant. Whatever may be the justification for a decree-holder in not leading evidence, or placing the material before the Court, to prove his allegation against the judgment debtor, when the latter remained ex porte, he must discharge that burden, once he is produced before the Court. The Executing Court did not ensure compliance of these mandatory requirements, and had simply directed arrest and detention of the petitioners herein. 13. Therefore, the C.R.Ps. are allowed, and the orders under revisions are set aside. The Executing Court shall require the respondents to prove their contention, before it proceeds to pass any order against the petitioners, and ensure compliance with the relevant provisions of law. 14. There shall be no order as to costs. --X--