K HARIKRISHNA Vs. L RAGHUNATHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment-debtor in E.P. No.29 of 2002, on the file of V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, filed this revision, aggrieved by the order dated 20-11-2002, passed by that Court, directing his committal to civil prison.

(2.) The respondent filed O.S. No.408 of 1987 in the Court of V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for recovery of certain amount against the petitioner, his mother and sister. The suit was decreed on 8-7-1994, for a sum of Rs.2,39,626. Since the decretal amount was not paid, the respondent filed E.P. No.29 of 2002, seeking arrest of the petitioner under Rule 37 of Order 21 C.P.C. Through the order under revision, the executing Court directed the committal of the petitioner to civil prison.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner- Sri R. Raghunandan Rao, submits that the respondent has misused the process of Court, by straightaway filing an application under Rule 37 of Order 21 C.P.C., seeking arrest of the petitioner. He contends that the executing Court did not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 51 and Order 21 of C.P.C., before committal of the petitioner to civil prison. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin, AIR 1980 SC 470, and the judgment of this Court in Kasi Subbaiah Mudali v. Kasi Veeraswamy Mudali, 2002 (3) ALT 240, learned Counsel submits that the failure of the executing Court to follow the procedure renders the order under revision ineffective and liable to be set aside.