JUDGMENT : VIJU ABRAHAM, J. 1. The above original petition has been filed seeking to set aside Ext.P3 order dated 23.05.2024 in E.P.No.53 of 2022 in ARC No.758 of 2019 on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Payyannur. 2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of the original petition are as follows: Petitioner is the respondent/judgment debtor in E.P.No.53 of 2022 on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Payyannur and the respondent herein is the petitioner/decree holder in the said execution petition. In execution of the award of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Payyanur dated 20.06.2019 in ARC No.758 of 2019 respondent filed E.P.No.53 of 2022 before the Court of Subordinate Judge, Payyannur. As per the execution petition, the total award amount along with interest comes to Rs.11,56,511/- and the mode of assistance of the court required are as follows: i. The mortgaged property shown in the schedule below may be proclaimed, sold and the sale proceeds may be paid over to the petitioner towards the decree amount. ii. Notice under Rule 37 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “CPC”) may be issued to the respondent and also a warrant of arrest under Rule 38 and they may be detained in civil prison for the realisation of the decree amount. 3. The petitioner contended that as per the execution petition, the first prayer is to sell the mortgaged property of the petitioner measuring an extent of 4.45 Ares (11 cents) in re-survey no.9/3 of Payyannur amsom, Kavvayi desom of Payyannur Taluk, which has been mortgaged with the bank at the time of availing the loan. A detailed counter statement was filed by the petitioner in the execution petition contending that the entire property need not be sold and only a portion of the property need be sold so as to fulfil the decree debt as the property is situated in the middle of the town and is having a value of more than Rs.5,00,000/- per cent. It is the case of the petitioner that the execution court did not consider the counter statement and without proceeding with the sale of the mortgaged property passed Ext.P3 order dated 23.05.2024 issuing warrant of arrest, that too without conducting an enquiry under Rule 40(1) of Order XXI CPC and without proving the means of the judgment debtor. It is the case of the petitioner that the execution court did not consider the counter statement and without proceeding with the sale of the mortgaged property passed Ext.P3 order dated 23.05.2024 issuing warrant of arrest, that too without conducting an enquiry under Rule 40(1) of Order XXI CPC and without proving the means of the judgment debtor. The contention of the petitioner is that issuance of Ext.P3 order whereby arrest warrant was issued against him is in violation of the provisions of the CPC and also the judgment of this Court in Anilkumar v. Divya, 2023 (5) KHC 341 . The petitioner would contend that in Anilkumar ’s case cited supra it was categorically held that the execution court cannot invoke the remedy under Clause (c) of Section 51 CPC by issuing arrest warrant against the judgment debtor without exhausting the remedy under Clause (b) of Section 51 CPC by the sale of movable or immovable property if any available. So, on the basis of the same, the first contention of the petitioner is that before issuing arrest warrant, the execution court ought to have proceeded with the sale of movable or immovable property and only thereafter the court could have resorted to the arrest and detention of the judgment debtor in civil prison. Secondly, it is contended that before issuing arrest warrant as per Ext.P3, the procedures as contemplated in Rule 40(1) of Order XXI CPC have not been followed. 4. The respondent entered appearance through counsel and contended that as regard the first contention of the petitioner that the execution court can proceed against the person of the judgment debtor only after proceeding against the property of the judgment debtor is not correct and he relies on the judgments in Shyam Singh v. Collector, District Hamirpur, U.P. and others, 1993 KHC 1018, Leelakumari v. Shikha and others, 2018 (4) KHC 155 and Anjengo Coir Mattings v. Indian Overseas Bank, 1996 (1) KLT 506 in support of his contentions. 5. I have heard the rival contentions of both sides. 6. Let me consider the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the judgment in Anilkumar ’s case cited supra that the proceedings under Clause (c) of Section 51 CPC could be initiated only after exhausting the remedy as provided under Clause (b) of the said Section. 6. Let me consider the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the judgment in Anilkumar ’s case cited supra that the proceedings under Clause (c) of Section 51 CPC could be initiated only after exhausting the remedy as provided under Clause (b) of the said Section. Section 51 CPC dealing with the power of the court to enforce execution reads as 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 limits 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.”(Underline supplied) This Court in Anilkumar ’s case cited supra has entered a finding that the entire scheme of Section 51 CPC clearly postulates the procedure to be taken one after another in execution of a decree and Clause (b) of Section 51 CPC specifies the procedure to be applied in execution of a decree for payment of money by the sale of property either with attachment or without attachment. The subsequent provision, Clause (c) deals with yet another method of execution by arrest and detention of judgment debtor and it is included as a succeeding provision just after the normal method of execution of a money decree by the sale of property of judgment-debtor under Clause (b) and therefore held that when other alternatives are available by way of sale of immovable property or other properties which are under attachment and available for execution, there is no occasion to resort to Clause (c) of Section 51 overriding Clause (b). Paragraph 3 of the said judgment reads as follows: “3. The entire scheme of Section 51 C.P.C. clearly postulates the procedure to be taken one after another in execution of a decree. The clause (b) to Section 51 C.P.C. specifies the procedure to be applied in execution of a decree for payment of money by the sale of property either with attachment or without attachment. The subsequent provision, clause (c) deals with yet another method of execution by arrest and detention of judgment debtor. It was included as a succeeding provision just after the normal method of execution of a money decree by the sale of property of judgment-debtor under clause (b), presumably as a precaution not to deprive the personal liberty of a person guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, unless there is sufficient grounds for his arrest and detention in civil prison. Hence, it is not permissible to bypass the normal method of execution by sale of property under clause (b) so as to invoke clause (c) for the arrest and detention of judgment-debtor. Hence, it is not permissible to bypass the normal method of execution by sale of property under clause (b) so as to invoke clause (c) for the arrest and detention of judgment-debtor. The court may order execution of a decree by adopting clauses (a) to (e) attached to the main Section viz.,(a) by delivery of any property specifically decreed (b) by attachment and sale or by 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. The entire scheme of Section 51 C.P.C. hence would show that the court cannot exhaust the remedy under clause (c) by issuing warrant of arrest against the judgment-debtor without exhausting clause (b) of Section 51 by the sale of movable or immovable property, if any available. The principle behind it is succinctly summarized by the Apex Court in Jolly George Varghese and Another v. The Bank of Cochin, (1980) 2 SC 360. The noble principle under Article 21 of the Constitution that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law is for protecting a person from being arrested and detained in prison unnecessarily and it should be always in accordance with any of the procedure established by law, which stands for and requires strict compliance of its mandate and procedure. There cannot be any kind of dilution since it is guaranteed under the Constitution, but with the abovesaid exception, which requires strict adherence of both the mandate and procedure and conditions to be satisfied under any of the law in force so as to deprive the personal liberty of a particular person. In short, no warrant of arrest or coercive steps can be initiated against the judgment-debtor, when a property is available for sale by way of an attachment before judgment or at the execution. The availability of any other method of execution of decree of money either in part or in whole would exclude the extreme steps of execution by arrest and detention till such property was completely proceeded against or the property has become not available for execution for any other valid reasons. The availability of any other method of execution of decree of money either in part or in whole would exclude the extreme steps of execution by arrest and detention till such property was completely proceeded against or the property has become not available for execution for any other valid reasons. When other alternatives are available by way of immovable property or other properties which are under attachment and available for execution, there may not be any occasion to resort to clause (c) to Section 51 overriding clause (b). Further, the proviso attached to Section 51 C.P.C. deals with the restrictions imposed in issuing a warrant of arrest, which can be issued on satisfaction of clause (a), (b) or (c) attached to that proviso and would come into play only when clause (c) to Section 51 was taken as a method of execution. Hence, it is not permissible to issue warrant of arrest at the execution of a money decree under the premise of proviso attached to Section 51 C.P.C. so as to prevent likelihood of absconding or leaving the local limits of jurisdiction with the intent either to obstruct or to delay the execution of the decree at the stage when the matter falls under clause (b) of Section 51 C.P.C.. Necessarily, there is no scope for issuing a warrant of arrest at the stage of clause (b) i.e. the sale of movable or immovable property of judgment-debtor and till the completion of that stage, no coercive steps either by issuance of warrant of arrest or detention in prison can be resorted to. Further, a warrant of arrest that can be issued for furnishing security or to show cause at the trial stage under Rule 1 of Order XXXVIII C.P.C. cannot be extended to in an execution proceedings of a decree for payment of money, except as stated above. In short, in order to exhaust the method of execution by arrest and detention of the judgment- debtor, it must be satisfied as a condition precedent that no other method of recovery of the decree amount in execution is available. In short, in order to exhaust the method of execution by arrest and detention of the judgment- debtor, it must be satisfied as a condition precedent that no other method of recovery of the decree amount in execution is available. The mandate of issuance of notice and the doctrine of 'no means' and 'lack of bonafides' though relevant in the determination of issue under Rule 37 of Order XXI C.P.C. r/w proviso attached to Section 51 C.P.C., may not have any application with respect to a property which is available for attachment and sale, which would otherwise fall under clause (b) of Section 51 C.P.C.. In that stage or during the pendency of procedure under clause (b) for the sale of movable or immovable property, no warrant of arrest against the judgment-debtor can be issued.” 7. On the contrary it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the said finding in Anilkumar ’s case cited supra is contrary to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 regarding the execution of a decree and also settled position of law as per the judgments cited supra in support of his contentions. 8. Order XXI Rule 30 CPC reads as follows: “ 30. Decree for payment of money - Every decree for the payment of money, including a decree for the payment of money as the alternative to some other relief, may be executed by the detention in the civil prison of the judgment debtor, or by the attachment and sale of his property, or by both.”(Underline supplied) Order XXI Rule 21 CPC is also relevant for consideration which reads as follows: “ 21. Simultaneous execution - The court may, in its discretion, refuse execution at the same time against the person and property of the judgment-debtor.” As per Order XXI Rule 30 CPC every decree for payment of money may be executed by detention in the civil prison of the judgment debtor or by attachment and sale of his property, or by both. The issue regarding the simultaneous invocation of both the methods for execution of the decree was considered by the Apex Court in Shyam Singh ‘s case cited supra, paragraph 11 of the said judgment reads as follows: “11. It has been said the difficulties of a litigant "begin when he has obtained a decree". The issue regarding the simultaneous invocation of both the methods for execution of the decree was considered by the Apex Court in Shyam Singh ‘s case cited supra, paragraph 11 of the said judgment reads as follows: “11. It has been said the difficulties of a litigant "begin when he has obtained a decree". It is a matter of common knowledge that far too many obstacles are placed in the way of a decree holder who seeks to execute his decree against the property of the judgment debtor. Perhaps because of that there is no statutory provision against a number of execution proceedings continuing concurrently. S.51 of the Code gives an option to the creditor, of enforcing the decree either against the person or the property of the debtor; and nowhere it has been laid down that execution against the person of the debtor shall not be allowed unless and until the decree holder has exhausted his remedy against the property. O.21, R.30 of the Code provides that "every decree for the payment of money, including a decree for the payment of money as the alternative to some other relief, may be executed by the detention in the civil prison of the judgment debtor, or by the attachment and sale of his property, or by both". Considering the provisions of Order XXI Rule 30 CPC and the provisions of Order XXI Rule 21 and the judgment in Shyam Singh ‘s case cited supra, a Division Bench of this Court in Leelakumari ’s case cited supra has held as follows: “6. We shall first deal with the contention regarding the legality of initiation of simultaneous proceedings for execution of the decree. Order 21 Rule30 of the Code reads as under: “30. Decree for payment of money - Every decree for the payment of money, including a decree for the payment of money as the alternative to some other relief, may be executed by the detention in the civil prison of the judgment - debtor, or by the attachment and sale of his property, or by both." Order 21 Rule 21 of the Code states as follows: “21. Simultaneous execution.- The Court may, in its discretion, refuse execution at the same time against the person and property of the judgment-debtor." A bare perusal of the provision contained in Order 21 Rule 30 of the Code would reveal that simultaneous execution of a decree for payment of money, including a decree for the payment of money as the alternative to some other relief, against the property and person of the judgment-debtor is permissible. 8. In Shyam Singh vs Collector, District Hamirpur, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 693, the Apex Court has held as follows: “It has been said the difficulties of a litigant "begin when he has obtained a decree". It is a matter of common knowledge that far too many obstacles are placed in the way of a decree holder who seeks to execute his decree against the property of the judgment debtor. Perhaps because of that there is no statutory provision against a number of execution proceedings continuing concurrently. Section 51 of the Code gives an option to the creditor, of enforcing the decree either against the person or the property of the debtor; and nowhere it has been laid down that execution against the person of the debtor shall not be allowed unless and until the decree holder has exhausted his remedy against the property.” (Emphasis supplied) Therefore, there can be no doubt with regard to the position of law that the decree holder is entitled to simultaneously proceed against the person and property of the judgment debtor. (underline supplied) This Court in Anjengo Coir Mattings ’s case cited supra has also upheld the said proposition of law and held that there is no bar in law to proceed simultaneously against the person and property of judgment-debtor in execution of a decree. 9. In view of the provisions of law as stated above and the judgments cited supra, I am of the opinion that the view taken in Anilkumar ’s case cited supra that proceedings under Clause (b) and (c) of Section 51 CPC cannot be initiated simultaneously is not the correct proposition of law and the same has been rendered without considering the decision laid down in Shyam Singh ’s case and Leelakumari ’s case cited supra. 10. 10. However, it is also to be noted that Order XXI Rule 21 CPC, which deals with simultaneous execution, gives the court discretion to refuse execution at the same time against a person and property of the judgment debtor as the principle underlying the above provision is to prevent harassment of judgment debtor by the decree holder under the guise of execution of the decree. The court has to exercise such discretion considering the facts and circumstances of each case. The petitioner will be at liberty to appraise the court that such special circumstance exists in the present case so as to invoke the provisions of Order XXI Rule 21 CPC, which if raised, shall be duly considered by the execution court in accordance with law. 11. The next aspect to be considered is the contention of the petitioner that the procedure as contemplated under Order XXI Rule 40(1) CPC has not been followed before the issuance of Ext.P3 order. A perusal of Ext.P3 order would reveal that it is a cryptic order without assigning any reasons and without considering any of the contentions of the petitioner in his counter statement. Ext.P3 order is extracted below: “Arrest batta paid. Issue warrant of arrest. Return of warrant.30.07.2024.” 12. A perusal of Ext.P3 order reveals that the court has not recorded in writing the reasons for reaching a conclusion that the judgment debtor has sufficient means to pay the decree debt and he had wilfully evaded payment of the same. Going by Section 51 CPC when the decree is for payment of money, execution by detention in prison shall not be ordered unless after giving the judgment debtor an opportunity to show cause why he should not be committed to prison and the court for reasons recorded in writing, is satisfied that the judgment debtor has or had since the date of 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. Likewise, Order XXI Rule 40 CPC also provides for the procedure to be followed by the court on the appearance of the judgment debtor in obedience to notice or after arrest, the court shall proceed to hear the decree-holder and shall take all such evidence as may be produced by him in support of his application for execution and shall then give the judgment debtor an opportunity of showing cause why he should not be committed to civil prison. A similar issue was considered by this Court in Leelakumari ’s case cited supra, the relevant portion of which reads as follows: “13. A close reading of Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 51 of the Code reveals that before passing an order for detention of the judgment-debtor in prison, the Court, for reasons recorded in writing, shall be satisfied 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 that he refuses or neglects or has refused or neglected to pay the same. The burden of proving the means of the judgment-debtor to pay the decree debt is on the decree holder. If there is prima facie material on record regarding the means of the judgment debtor, it is for the judgment debtor to prove otherwise because he is in a better position to know his assets. On a reading of the proviso to Section 51 of the Code it is evident that the court shall be not only satisfied with regard to the means of the judgment-debtor to pay the decree debt or a substantial part of it but it has also to record in writing the reasons for reaching such satisfaction. 14. In the present case, the order dated 21.04.2018 passed by the execution court shows that the court was satisfied that the judgment-debtor had sufficient means to pay the decree debt and that he had wilfully evaded payment of the same. However, the court has not recorded in writing the reasons for reaching the said conclusion. True, it is a case in which the first and the second judgment-debtors did not file any objection to the application E.A.No.33 of 2017. It appears that they did not raise any plea of no means. However, the court has not recorded in writing the reasons for reaching the said conclusion. True, it is a case in which the first and the second judgment-debtors did not file any objection to the application E.A.No.33 of 2017. It appears that they did not raise any plea of no means. It is also true that they did not adduce any evidence during the enquiry in the execution petition. However, it will not enable the court to dispense with the requirement under the proviso to Section 51 of the Code to record reasons in writing for arriving at a conclusion regarding the means of the judgment-debtor and his refusal or neglect to pay the decree debt. It is a case in which the decree holder was examined as PW1 and she has given evidence regarding the means of the first and the second judgment-debtors to pay the decree debt. She was also cross- examined by the judgment-debtors. The execution court has not stated anything in its order dated 21.04.2018 regarding the evidence of PW1 or the challenge made by the judgment-debtors to such evidence in the cross examination. In short, the order dated 21.04.2018 passed by the execution court is not a speaking order stating the reasons for arriving at the conclusion regarding the means of the judgment-debtors to pay the decree debt. 15. It is incumbent upon the courts to pass speaking and reasoned orders. Giving reasons for conclusions is an essential element of administration of justice. Reasons are the links between the material, the foundation for their erection and the actual conclusions. They would also demonstrate how the mind of the maker was activated and actuated and their rational nexus and synthesis with the facts considered and the conclusions reached (See Krishna Swami v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 1407 ). Judicial orders must be supported by reasons recorded in them. While deciding an issue, the court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation of the court to record reasons. Giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration of the justice-delivery system, to make it known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the court and also as an essential requisite of the principles of natural justice. Giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration of the justice-delivery system, to make it known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the court and also as an essential requisite of the principles of natural justice. Recording of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter by a court. It is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of the exercise undertaken. Reasons shall be given for reaching a conclusion so as to reflect application of mind by the court. Reason introduces clarity in an order. Reasons substitute subjectivity with objectivity. Absence of reasons renders an order indefensible/ unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. Reasons ensure transparency and fairness in decision making (See Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC148).” (Underline supplied) A perusal of Ext P3 order reveals total lack of reasoning and therefore the same is a non-speaking order. In view of the above facts and circumstances, though the contention raised by the petitioner relying on AnilKumar ’s case cited supra is repelled, for non-compliance with the procedures as contemplated in Section 51 as well as Order XXI Rule 40 CPC, I am inclined to interfere with Ext.P3, which is a cryptic order passed without assigning any reasons. Accordingly, Ext.P3 order dated 23.05.2024 in E.P.No.53 of 2022 is set aside with a consequential direction to the execution court to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made above and after giving sufficient opportunity to the decree-holder and judgment debtor to substantiate their case strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 51 and Order XXI Rule 40 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Accordingly, the original petition is disposed of.