ORDER : P. Devadass, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of arrest order passed in E.P. No. 15 of 2012 in O.S. No. 27 of 2006 by the Execution Court/Sub Court, Kovilpatti. By the money decree passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Kovilpatti in O.S. No. 27 of 2006 the revision petitioner became a judgment debtor and the respondent became a decree holder. 2. In realization of the decree debt, the respondent levied execution in E.P. No. 15 of 2012 by seeking arrest of the judgment debtor. The decree debt was calculated at Rs. 2,14,676.50. The execution Court ordered arrest of the judgment debtor. The Court bailiff arrested him. As the judgment debtor paid Rs. 2,000/-, part satisfaction was recorded and he got a temporary reprieve. 3. At this juncture, he has directed this Civil Revision Petition assailing his arrest and direction to send him to civil prison. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that already the revision petitioner has petitioned the Insolvency (Sub Court) Court, Kovilpatti in I.P. No. 3 of 2010. As per Section 55(3) C.P.C. when a person has given I.P., he cannot be arrested. And Section 55(4) C.P.C., gives him liberty to mention before the Execution Court his intention to move the insolvency Court, then he shall not be arrested. 5. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would cite Allamelu Ammal V.T.S. Venkatarama Iyer ( (1927) 26 L.W. 305 : AIR 1927 Madras 919). 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the said decision is distinguishable on facts. Further, the I.P. matter was not brought to the notice of the Execution Court. Further, it is an attempt by the judgment debtor to delay the payment. 7. In reply, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that filing of I.P. can be brought to notice of the Court at any stage of the proceedings. 8. I have considered the rival submissions, perused the materials on record, orders and direction of the Execution Court and the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. Now, it is judgment debtor v. decree holder. The decree holder wants to put the judgment debtor in civil prison and he is prepared to pay the batta for the same. But the judgment debtor says that he has become a bankrupt. 9. Now, it is judgment debtor v. decree holder. The decree holder wants to put the judgment debtor in civil prison and he is prepared to pay the batta for the same. But the judgment debtor says that he has become a bankrupt. He would say that no money, no arrest. 10. This matter is to be viewed from two angles. 11. In the impugned order the arrest of the judgment debtor has been ordered and the inevitable consequence is his detention in the civil prison. 12. Sending a person to prison whether, civil or criminal is antithesis of one's liberty and personal freedom. Although food and shelter is provided in jail, after 5 p.m. it will be an hell. It also curtails personal liberty of a person (see Article 21, Constitution of India). 13. A provision for arrest and detention in civil prison is provided in the Code of Civil Procedure. However, Civil Procedure Code or any action taken thereunder should not militate against Article 21 of the Constitution of India because no man shall be deprived of his life or liberty except procedure established by law. (See Jolly George Verghese and Another v. The Bank of Cochin 1980 AIR 470) The procedure must be 'fair' and 'reasonable'. Even it may be an order of a Court to arrest a person, may be a judgment, it must conform to the said principle of law. 14. In abridging person's personal liberty, the statutory procedure contemplated should be strictly followed. Otherwise, it will go against Menaka Gandhi principle (see Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 AIR 597) because no man shall be deprived of his life or liberty in an unjust, arbitrary manner. Courts and Court orders are not exception to the Constitutional principle. 15. Now, in the case at our hand, if we read the impugned order, it shows that the mandatory provisions incorporated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been violated. First of all when a civil Court determines to send a judgment debtor to civil prison, it must give a finding that he has sufficient means yet he has failed and neglect to pay the decree debt. There must be a finding to the said effect. So, it must be after recording means evidence adduced by the decree holder, arrest and detention of the Judgment debtor should be ordered. There must be a finding to the said effect. So, it must be after recording means evidence adduced by the decree holder, arrest and detention of the Judgment debtor should be ordered. Because a person has become a debtor or judgment debtor he does not ceases to be a human being and he looses all his human rights and human sentiments. However, the impugned order it is not so. 16. Now, we will go to the next angle. Even a wicked or worst person cannot be faulted for his taking umbrage under law. He shall not be denied the defence available to him under law because when the law allows him to take such defences he cannot be misquoted. This is British notions of justice, which we have imported, inherited and imbibed. 17. A defence based on I.P. has been advanced. Section 55 C.P.C. deals with arrest and detention of a person in Civil Prison. Section 55(4) C.P.C. gives liberty to a judgment debtor to inform the Execution Court of his intention to get himself declared an insolvent by the Insolvency Court. 18. Section 55(4) C.P.C. reads as under: "Where a judgment-debtor expresses his intention to apply to be declared an insolvent and furnishes security, to the satisfaction of the Court, that he will within one month so apply, and that he will appear, when called upon, in any proceedings upon the application or upon the decree in execution of which he was arrested, the Court may release him from arrest, and, if he fails so to apply and to appear, the Court may either direct the security to be realized or commit him to the civil prison in execution of the decree." 19. Section 55(4) (supra) enables the Judgment debtor to inform that he had planned to move the Insolvency Court for relief. If the Execution Court satisfied, it can release him on sufficient surety etc. 20. Now, in the case before us, admittedly, before the Execution Court, the judgment debtor did not expressed his such a move. Further, as regards satisfaction and requirement under Section 55(4) C.P.C. before granting him relief viz. release so far has not been worked out. 21. In Venkatarama Iyer (supra) Justice Wallace, had occasion to deal with a judgment debtor who had decided to become an insolvent. Further, as regards satisfaction and requirement under Section 55(4) C.P.C. before granting him relief viz. release so far has not been worked out. 21. In Venkatarama Iyer (supra) Justice Wallace, had occasion to deal with a judgment debtor who had decided to become an insolvent. The factual situation was that when the vesting of the property of the judgment debtor in the insolvent Court. In such circumstances, the learned Judge remarked: "It would be absurd to hold that it was open to an execution-creditor without the permission of the insolvency Court to arrest his judgment-debtor for not satisfying his decree debt, when the assets of the judgment-debtor are not vested in him or under his control, and when the official receiver is still holding them for the benefit of the judgment-debtor's general body of creditors." 22. Thus T.S. Venkatarama Iyer (supra) is distinguishable on facts. 23. Manifestly the impugned order of arrest militates against Procedural Law and also Constitutional principles. Therefore, the said order of arrest and the consequent direction to send him to civil prison does not stand the scrutiny of law. So, it must go. But the judgment debtor must go to the Execution Court. As stated already he has every right to present his case on the anvil of Section 55 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 24. In view of the foregoings, the impugned order of arrest passed on 07.04.2015 in E.P. No. 15 of 2012 in O.S. No. 27 of 2006 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti is set aside. E.P. No. 15 of 2012 in O.S. No. 27 of 2006 is remanded back to the said Court. The learned Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti on the Execution side will rehear this Execution Petition and after giving opportunity to both sides shall pass orders according to law. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2015 is closed.