Civil prison in money decree execution requires strict statutory proof; a company director cannot be personally detained without personal liability.

Arrest and detention in execution of a money decree is permissible only if the decree-holder proves the specific statutory grounds after the judgment-debtor is given an opportunity to show cause; mere allegations of resistance to attachment are insufficient. The court also clarified that a managing director cannot be committed to civil prison in a personal capacity for a company's decree debt unless personal liability and the requisite statutory conditions, including means and wilful refusal to pay, are established. On the stated facts, the required grounds were not proved, so personal detention could not be sustained and the execution request failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the decree-holder had established any statutory ground for arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor in execution of a money decree. (ii) Whether the managing director of the company could be detained in prison in his personal capacity for recovery of the company's decree debt.

Issue (i): Whether the decree-holder had established any statutory ground for arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor in execution of a money decree.

Analysis: Arrest and detention in execution of a money decree can be ordered only within the strict limits of the execution provision governing civil prison and only after the judgment-debtor is given an opportunity to show cause. The decree-holder bears the burden of proving facts bringing the case within the statutory grounds, including obstruction, dishonest concealment or removal of property, or refusal to pay despite means. Mere allegations of resistance to attachment, without specific proof of the required statutory conditions, are insufficient.

Conclusion: The statutory grounds for arrest and detention were not proved, so detention could not be ordered.

Issue (ii): Whether the managing director of the company could be detained in prison in his personal capacity for recovery of the company's decree debt.

Analysis: The decree was against the company through its managing director, not against the managing director as an independent personal debtor. In the absence of proof of personal liability or proof that he held means and wilfully refused payment within the statutory framework, personal detention could not be sustained merely because he was described as managing director. The execution remedy could not be used to fasten personal civil prison liability on him without satisfying the statutory preconditions.

Conclusion: The managing director could not be detained in prison in his personal capacity.

Final Conclusion: The request for arrest and detention in execution failed, and the application was rejected for want of proof of the required statutory grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: In execution of a money decree, arrest and detention in civil prison can be ordered only when the decree-holder proves the precise statutory grounds after giving the judgment-debtor an opportunity to show cause, and a company's managing director cannot be personally committed to prison absent proof of his own liability and the requisite statutory conditions.

---