Civil prison for money decrees requires present means to pay or wilful bad faith, not mere inability.

Detention in civil prison for non-payment of a money decree is permissible only where the judgment-debtor has present means to pay, or has wilfully refused payment in bad faith; mere inability or poverty is insufficient. The execution court must assess current financial capacity before issuing or sustaining a warrant of arrest, and an earlier finding on means cannot stand if later events may have altered the debtor's position. The execution provision is to be read consistently with personal liberty and the prohibition against imprisonment for inability to meet a contractual obligation. The arrest order was therefore unsustainable on the existing record and the matter required fresh determination of the statutory conditions for detention.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether detention in civil prison for non-payment of a money decree is permissible only where the judgment-debtor has present means to pay or has acted in bad faith, so that Section 51 and Order 21 Rule 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure are to be read consistently with Article 11 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the execution court had to re-examine the judgment-debtors' present means and current ability to pay before issuing or sustaining the warrant of arrest.

Issue (i): The provision for arrest and detention in execution of a money decree does not authorise imprisonment merely because the debt remains unpaid. The statutory safeguard requires a finding of current means to pay, or refusal or neglect to pay despite such means, or conduct showing obstruction, delay, dishonesty, or bad faith. The construction of the Code must be informed by the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty and the international norm against imprisonment merely for inability to fulfil a contractual obligation.

Conclusion: Detention in civil prison is permissible only on proof of present means to pay or comparable bad faith, and not for mere inability or poverty.

Issue (ii): The earlier finding about means had become stale because the debtors' property had already been attached and placed under receivership, and later developments might have altered their financial position. The execution court was therefore required to determine afresh whether they presently had the means to satisfy the decree, or whether any refusal to pay was dishonest or in bad faith.

Conclusion: The matter required de novo reconsideration of the judgment-debtors' present means and conduct before coercive execution by arrest could continue.

Final Conclusion: The order directing arrest could not stand on the existing record, and the execution proceedings were sent back for fresh determination of the statutory conditions governing detention.

Ratio Decidendi: A judgment-debtor cannot be detained in civil prison for a money decree unless the court records, on current facts, that he has the means to pay or has wilfully refused payment in bad faith; the execution provision must be construed in harmony with personal liberty and the prohibition against imprisonment merely for inability to meet a contractual obligation.

---