Execution of a Money Decree by Arrest Requires Prior Mandatory Show Cause Notice Under Section 51 CPC.

The appellant (judgment-debtor) challenged an order dated 23.12.2025 passed by the Commercial Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi, which issued warrants of arrest against him in an execution petition

The Executing Court observed that the appellant’s asset affidavit showed no movable or immovable property, yet a report suggested his residential property had floors on rent

Disregarding the appellant's objections, the Executing Court concluded he was intentionally avoiding his liability to pay the decretal amount and issued arrest warrants through the local SHO

The appellant contended that the court failed to issue a show-cause notice as mandatorily required under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)

Section 51 of the CPC, which provides that execution by detention in prison shall not be ordered for a money decree unless the judgment-debtor is given an opportunity to show cause

Order XXI Rule 37, which mandates the issuance of a notice instead of a warrant, unless there is a risk of absconding

Order XXI Rule 40, which prescribes a mandatory inquiry before detention

The Supreme Court precedent in Jolly George Varghese v. The Bank of Cochin, which held that simple inability to pay is not grounds for imprisonment under Article 21 of the Constitution and Section 51 of the CPC

The principle from Taylor v. Taylor that if a statute prescribes a specific manner for an act, it must be done in that manner or not at all

The High Court observed that the Executing Court bypassed the "rigid and mandatory protocol" established for the arrest of a civil debtor

Under the proviso to Section 51, the court must be satisfied—after a show-cause notice—that the debtor is likely to abscond, has dishonestly transferred property, or possesses the means to pay but refuses to do so

the respondent (decree-holder) admitted that no show-cause notice was issued

there was no material to suggest the appellant was likely to abscond, which would have been the only ground to bypass the notice under the proviso to Rule 37(1)

since personal liberty is at stake, adherence to the procedure must be "scrupulous"; thus, issuing warrants without an inquiry or a prior show-cause notice violated the appellant's rights under Article 21 and the procedural requirements of the CPC

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order to the extent of the issuance of arrest warrants

However, the respondent was granted liberty to file a fresh application under Order XXI Rule 11A and Rule 37, after which the Executing Court must afford the appellant a proper opportunity to show cause before passing any further orders regarding detention