Judgment :- The petitioner is a Judgment debtor / respondent in E.P.No.1737 of 2006 in O.S.No.8001 of 2000 on the file of IX Assistant Court, City Civil Court, Chennai. The respondent bank obtained a money decree against the petitioner herein and levied execution proceedings. The Court below on 13.06.2007 passed the following impugned order:- "P.W.1 proof affidavit filed, EX.P.1 Marked, means proved. Arrest judgment debtor by 23.07.2007" 2. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that inasmuch as the executing Court has not adverted to the settled principles of law before passing the order of arrest against the judgment debtor, the order impugned has no force in the eye of law. It is his further submission that no proper enquiry has been taken out by the Court below to assess whether the judgment debtor is a man of means. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent would repel the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner by stating that the order passed by the Executing Court has been duly passed with proper application of mind and it has got every legal force. .5. It is contended by the petitioner that the petitioner is aged about 65 years old and that though he was an Auditor, presently he is not having any means to pay off the decree debt. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to a decision rendered by this Court in (AIR 1992 Mad.382), T.S. Ranganathan V. Mohanram, where the learned Judge while discussing about an identical matter, has held that while the warrant of arrest against the judgment debtor is passed by the Court, it has to necessarily render a finding that the non-payment on the part of judgment debtor was a deliberate one and that the executing Court should follow the procedure under Order 21 Rule 40 CPC. 7. He has also referred to earlier decisions of this Court and insisted upon that the Court below to follow the procedure prescribed Order 21 Rule 40 CPC. He further submitted that if the decree holder wants to let in evidence in this regard, he should be allowed to do so and thereafter, if the judgment debtor wants to lead any evidence, he should also be allowed to do so. 8. He further submitted that if the decree holder wants to let in evidence in this regard, he should be allowed to do so and thereafter, if the judgment debtor wants to lead any evidence, he should also be allowed to do so. 8. He also garnered support from a decision of this Court in (AIR 1982 Mad 1981), Anama Gounder V A.C. Ponnusami, wherein this court has held that where on an application by the decree-holder for arrest and detention of the judgment debtor in civil prison, the Court straightaway ordered detention of the judgment-debtor on finding certain ameliorative provisions inapplicable to the order of detention was invalid in view of Order 21 Rule 40 (1) CPC. Section 51 of the Act would make it clear that the execution Court has to satisfy itself as to the means possessed by the judgment-debtor and if there was neglect on his part, the satisfaction of the Court shall be brought to record in the form of valid reasons. .9. Coming to the case on hand, the manner in which the order passed by the executing Court would reveal that it is a classical instance of non-application of mind, which does not show whether necessary opportunity were afforded to both parties to let in evidence and on the appreciation of which, the Court passed the order of arrest. If the execution Court records merely as "means proved by affidavit" it is not sufficient to satisfy itself that the judgment debtor possesses the means. In case, if the judgment debtor avoids the Court by remaining ex parte, then it is the duty of the Court to assign its reasons on the basis of the averments made by the decree holder in the proof affidavit as to the means possessed by the judgment debtor and pass appropriate order. While passing the order, it is the bounden duty of the Court below to record its satisfaction as regards the means of judgment debtor to pay. In the absence of the above said aspects, the order passed by the executing Court ought to be held as not sustainable. 10. In such view of the matter, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the Executing Court to take the matter again and to pass orders afresh in the light of the observation made in this order. 11. In the absence of the above said aspects, the order passed by the executing Court ought to be held as not sustainable. 10. In such view of the matter, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the Executing Court to take the matter again and to pass orders afresh in the light of the observation made in this order. 11. In fine, this civil revision petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order and the matter is remanded back to the Executing Court for disposal of the same on merits and in accordance with law. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. No costs.