JANNALAGADDA VENUGOPAL Vs. SYNDICATE BANK KAVALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the respondent is absent. The petitioner is the judgment-debtor in O.S.No.99/80 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kavali. In execution of the decree, the respondent-Bank filed an application for arrest of the petitioner. According to the affidavit of the petitioner filed in this Court in CMP No.19267/89, he filed a counter before the lower Court stating that he was not passed of any property and that he was not employed and that he had no means to discharge the decretal amount. In spite of the said averments in the counter, the learned Subordinate Judge, Kavali, straight away ordered the arrest of the petitioner. No doubt, the petitioner was absent when called on 29-11-89 and he was set ex parie. But yet, the Court cannot ignore the mandatory provisions of Sec.51 of the Civil Procedure Code. Proviso to Sec.51 is in the following terms: