Order 1. These Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the orders passed in E.P.No.29 of 2013 and E.A.No.78 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram. 2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.124 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram is the revision petitioner in both the revisions. The plaintiff had filed a suit in O.A.No.124 of 2004 for a relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant and their men from interfering with or causing inconvenience for the day-to-day administration of the Adhi Penthecosthe Sathiya Sabhai (beginning Pentecostal Truth Church), Malavilai and its branch churches by Sadhu C.Selvaraj, the sole trustee and Administrator. 3. The said suit was resisted by the defendant by filing his written statement. 4. After elaborate trial and evidence, the suit was decreed on 31/10/2006. 5. In the suit, the defendant also had filed counter claim. Therefore, while granting the decree in favour of the plaintiff, a decree was also passed in favour of the first defendant permitting him to reside in the plaintiff Sabha and the defendant can take part in the prayers, subject to the rules and conditions of the Sabha. 6. Aggrieved by the allowing of the counter claim, the plaintiff preferred A.S.No.5 of 2007 on the file of the Sub-Court, Padmanabhapuram and the defendant also preferred Cross-Appeal No.5 of 2007 aggrieved by the decree granted in favour of the plaintiff. The lower Appellate Court, on 6/10/2007, allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and dismissed the cross- appeal filed by the defendant. 7. Not satisfied with that, the defendant had filed S.A.No.114 of 2008 on the file of this Court and this Court, on 6/2/2012 had passed the following judgment:- “The Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court with regard to relief of injunction sought for in original Suit No.124 of 2004 are confirmed. Likewise the Judgment and decree granted in respect of counterclaim by the trial Court are restore. However it is made clear that the appellant / first defendant is entitled to take part in prayer subject to rules and conditions of the Sabha mentioned in the plaint and he is also entitled to reside in the portion in which he is residing and the plaintiff should not cause disturbance to him with regard to take part in prayer as well as residing in a portion of the Church building. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.” 8. As the second Appellate Court had restored the decree of the trial Court, entitling the defendant to have right of residence and for taking part in the prayer, the defendant tried to gain entry into the Church building. According to the defendant, in spite of the specific decree by this Court, he was not allowed to reside in the portion of the Church building and also he was not allowed to take part in the Church prayers. According to the defendant, the plaintiff had violated the decree for injunction granted by this Court. It was alleged by the defendant that the plaintiff had put up barbed wire fence and granite walls to prevent him from entering the prayer hall of the Church and the plaintiff also kept the gates always closed and instructed their security personnels not to allow the defendant into the Church. 9. The defendant also sent a notice to the plaintiff on 23/1/2013, requesting them to allow access to the prayer hall of the Church and allow him to reside in the portion of the Church building. The plaintiff also had given a reply to the same. The defendant had preferred a complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kulasekaram. As the plaintiff had disobeyed the order of the Court, the defendant had filed E.P.No.29 of 2013 under Order 21 Rule 32 for an order of detention of the plaintiff in the civil prison and along with that filed E.A.No.78 of 2013 for Police protection. 10. The said petition and application were resisted by the plaintiff. The plaintiff contended that the defendant is bound by the rules and regulations of the Church as stated in the decree also. But he had violated the rules and regulations of the Sabha by going away from the plaintiff Church and started a new Sabha by name Aramada Deiva Saba, Koodarapally, Carmel Mandapam, Aramada P.O., Trivandrum. The plaintiff contended that it is for the safety and security of the Church, the gates of the Church were always closed with the security personnels posted at the gate. As the defendant himself had violated the rules of the Sabha, he is not entitled to place of residence or permission for prayer. The plaintiff contended that it is for the safety and security of the Church, the gates of the Church were always closed with the security personnels posted at the gate. As the defendant himself had violated the rules of the Sabha, he is not entitled to place of residence or permission for prayer. However, it is contended by the plaintiff that the defendant had gone on his own volition out of the Church and he was never prevented from entry. But having gone against rules and regulations of the bye-laws of the Chuch, the defendant is not entitled to enforce the decree obtained in O.S.No.124 of 2004. 11. The above E.P and E.A had come up for consideration before the District Munsif Judge, Padmanabhapuram and the same were allowed directing the plaintiff to be detained in the civil prison for his wilful disobedience of the decree passed in the above suit for a period of one month. Aggrieved by the said order, the above Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred by the plaintiff. 12. Heard Mr.R.Gandhi, Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 13. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the order passed in Review Application No.149 of 2014 in S.A.No.114 of 2008, in particular to paragraph No.27 of the order and the same is extracted as follows:- “In the present petition initially it has been contended on the side of the review applicant that this Court has allowed the respondent/first defendant to take part in prayer subject to rules and conditions of the Sabha. In fact, this Court has formed a compound sentence. In the initial portion of sentence, it has been clearly mentioned to the effect that subject to rules and conditions of the Sabha mentioned in the plaint and the same is also equally applicable to later portion of the sentence. Therefore, viewing from any angle, the Review Application is not at all maintainable.” 14. From the above paragraph, the learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner was trying to explain that the decree in favour of the defendant allowing him to reside in the Church building and also take part in the prayer where both subject to the rules and conditions of the Sabha mentioned in the plaint. 15. From the above paragraph, the learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner was trying to explain that the decree in favour of the defendant allowing him to reside in the Church building and also take part in the prayer where both subject to the rules and conditions of the Sabha mentioned in the plaint. 15. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the agreement of the workers of the 'Beginning Pentecostal Truth Church' prescribes the rules and regulations for the workers and the Rule 14 is as follows:- (“TAMIL”) 16. As per the above Rules, the worker of the Church should be obedient to the rules and regulations of the Sabha and bound by the orders of the apostel. If the worker either goes on his own volition or has been expelled by the Church, he cannot claim any right. Once the worker goes on his own, he loses all the rights in the Malavilai Sabha. Therefore, it was contended that the defendant in the year 2010? 2011 had joined a new Sabha by name Armada Deiva Saba, Koodarapally and he was appointed as the President of the same. This document was marked as Ex.R.13. The defendant, on 14/12/2011, the defendant had convened a Executive Committee Meeting on behalf of Aranada Church of God in the capacity of the President. 17. According to the plaintiff, earlier, the defendant was residing in Room No.10 in the Oozhiyars' Quarters situated on the adjoining east of Adi East Pentecoste Satha Sabha, Malavilai (Plaintiff's sabha). Even before filing of the suit in 2004, the defendant had violated the rules and regulations of the plaintiff's Sabha without informing the plaintiff had voluntarily left the room and joined the Aranada Deiva Sabha as stated supra at Trivandrum. The defendant has been residing only in Trivandrum, Kerala District at least from the year 2010. The defendant is also said to have purchased a car in the year 2010 which bears Kerala registration number. Therefore, it is only the defendant who had disobeyed the decree and disentitled him by himself the right of exercise of right of participation in the prayers. 18. The learned counsel for the respondent concealed that the defendant has been away from the Church even from the year 2004 i.e., from the time of filing of the suit. Therefore, it is only the defendant who had disobeyed the decree and disentitled him by himself the right of exercise of right of participation in the prayers. 18. The learned counsel for the respondent concealed that the defendant has been away from the Church even from the year 2004 i.e., from the time of filing of the suit. According to the defendant, as there was a talk of amalgamation of the plaintiff Church with the Aramada Deiva Sabha, he had to go the said church and agreed to be the President. But when the said act is violative of the rules and regulations of the plaintiff's Sabha, the defendant is not entitled to claim right of residence or permission for prayer in the Church. The defendant did not have the authority to act on his own and take decisions on his own about the affairs of the plaintiff Sabha. 19. No doubt, the decree gives the right to the defendant to reside in the Church and take part in the prayer in the Church in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Church. As the defendant had violated the rules and regulations and left the plaintiff's Church voluntarily and conducting another Sabha in Trivandrum, the defendant is not entitled to enforce the decree. The Church administration, on 17/2/2013 seem to have given instruction to the security personnel not to allow the defendant to enter the Church or the prayer hall and also the quarters. Whether such instruction would amount to disobedience of the decree. As per Ex.R.4, if a person voluntarily leaves the Sabha, he would loses all the rights in the Sabha and he cannot claim to come back. 20. The Executing Court allowed the petition and the application on the ground that it cannot go beyond the decree. The said finding is wrong. No doubt, the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree, but in the given case, the Executing Court is expected to only give a finding whether the plaintiff had disobeyed the decree. No doubt, the decree entitles the defendant's right of residence and right of prayer in the Church, but with the condition. When the said condition is violated admittedly, the denial of entry by the plaintiff to the defendant cannot be considered as contempt. 21. Admittedly, the defendant has been living only in Trivandrum. No doubt, the decree entitles the defendant's right of residence and right of prayer in the Church, but with the condition. When the said condition is violated admittedly, the denial of entry by the plaintiff to the defendant cannot be considered as contempt. 21. Admittedly, the defendant has been living only in Trivandrum. It is not his case that he has taken shelter or refuge in the Trivandrum Church. But he has been the President of the Aranada Sabha and conducting prayers and meeting in the capacity of the President. Having voluntarily expelled himself from the plaintiff's Sabha, by not following the rules of the Church, the defendant himself has denied the benefits of the decree. Therefore, the Execution Court was wrong in holding that the plaintiff had willfully disobeyed the decree. 22. E.P is filed under Order 21 Rule 32 of the code of Civil Procedure for detaining the plaintiff in the civil prison to enforce the decree passed against them. The provisions of Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure are extremely penal. Therefore, when the provisions are so severe against the judgment debtor/contemnor, it is the duty of the Court to construe the Rule strictly and the Court which passes orders under the Rule must act strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Rule. In enforcement of the decree, the two conditions have to be established by the decree holder (I). opportunity to the other party to obey and (ii). Willful failure to obey 23. When the plaintiff had the opportunity of obeying the decree has willfully failed to obey, then the decree may be enforced by detaining the party in the civil prison. Therefore, the first condition is the opportunity to obey. 24. In the case on hand, though the defendant was given the right of residence and permission for prayer without any act of the plaintiff, he has been qualified to have the benefits of the decree by virtue of his own conduct. Therefore, the question of the opportunity to obey the decree does not arise. Then comes the question of willful disobedience of the decree. When the opportunity itself was not available to the plaintiff, the question of willful disobedience also is not available. 25. Unless both the conditions are satisfied, the Court which has got the discretionary power cannot order detention. Therefore, the question of the opportunity to obey the decree does not arise. Then comes the question of willful disobedience of the decree. When the opportunity itself was not available to the plaintiff, the question of willful disobedience also is not available. 25. Unless both the conditions are satisfied, the Court which has got the discretionary power cannot order detention. The impugned order is bad in view of the fact that the Court which had to exercise the discretion judiciously had failed to apply its mind. 26. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the defendant had lost the opportunity to enforce the decree granted in his favour and there is no disobedience committed by the plaintiff. 27. In the result, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the order passed by the Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram E.P.No.29 of 2013 in O.S.No.124 of 2004 and in E.A.No.78 of 2013 in E.P.No.29 of 2013 in O.S.No.124 of 2004 are set aside. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.