BADRACHALAM SURYANARAYANA Vs. LOTLA VARALAXMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has been filed by the judgment-debtor against the order of arrest passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Sompeta in E.P.No. 22 of 2001 in O.S.No. 56 of 1997. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of money and it was decreed. Subsequently the Execution Petition was filed for arrest of the Judgment debtor under Order 21 Rule 37 C.P.C. and the Court on 7-11-2002, passed the following order:

(2.) Whenever an Execution Petition for arrest of the judgment-debtor is made, the procedure contemplated under Order 21 Rule 40 has to be adopted, which reads as follows:

(3.) According to the said provision, the Court shall proceed to hear the decree holder and take all such evidence as may be produced by him in support of his application for Execution and shall then give the judgment debtor an opportunity of showing cause as to why he should not be committed to the civil prison. The lower court without following the procedure as contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure, simply mentioned that no evidence is contemplated before arrest. The order is assailed by the revision petitioner by saying that it cannot stand due to failure of the lower court in following the procedure before ordering arrest.