E R RANGANATHAN Vs. SAROJAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff decree-holder has filed this revision against the dismissal, of his Execution Petition No. 1916 of 1991 in o. S. No. 4686 of 1990 on the file of X Assistant City Civil Court , Madras, on 9. 12. 1993. E. P. No. 1916 of 1991 was filed by the plaintiff for arrest of the judgment- debtor/ respondent for detention in the civil prison and for attachment of her movables. THE said execution petition has been filed under o. 21, Rule 32 (1), C. P. C. for executing the decree of injunction obtained in o. S. No. 4686 of 1990, dated 27. 3. 1991, restraining the respondent from interfering with the possession by the petitioner of the property in question. THE court below has dismissed the execution petition on two grounds, viz. , (1)the respondent is a woman and she cannot be arrested; (2) it is not stated by the petitioner specifically that the respondent has acted contrary to the said decree.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that both these two alleged reasons cannot be sustained at all. According to him, only in the case of money decree, Sec. 56, C. P. C. prohibits the arrest of women judgment- debtors. Secondly, he points out that apart from stating in the affidavit filed in support of the execution petition, the petitioner has also given evidence, showing how the respondent has violated the decree.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, allowing the execution petition, the impugned order is set aside and this civil revision petition is allowed with costs. .