VADDIREDDY VENKATA SUBBA REDDY Vs. NARAPUREDDY KALYANAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the judgment-debtor, who suffered a money decree in O. S. No. 310 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, badvel. The respondent herein / decree-holder filed E. P. No. 97 of 2006 for execution of the decree by arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor in prison and the same was ordered on 10. 3. 2008 issuing arrest warrant against the judgment-debtor. Immediately thereafter, the revision petitioner/ judgment-debtor filed E. A. No. 85 of 2008 under Order 21 Rule 106 of C. P. C. to set aside the order of arrest dated 10. 3. 2008 and to recall the arrest warrant on the ground that I. P. No. 8 of 2008 filed by him in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, rajampet, is pending. The said petition was opposed by the decree-holder and the Court below by order dated 31. 3. 2008 dismissed E. A. No. 85 of 2008 holding that no case was made out to recall the warrant of arrest. The said order dated 31. 3. 2008 is under challenge in this Revision petition.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.

(3.) IN the case on hand, the suit was decreed on 25. 1. 2005 and the arrest warrant was issued in E. P. No. 97 of 2006 on 10. 3. 2008. Though it is pleaded by the revision petition that the order dated 10. 3. 2008 was passed ex parte,, the order under Revision shows that the said order was passed on contest by the judgment-debtor. Hence, Rule 106 of Order 21 of C. P. C. which empowers the Executing court to set aside the order on being satisfied that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance of the judgment-debtor when the application was called for hearing, has no application and as such e. A. No. 85 of 2008 filed under Order 21 rule 106 of C. P. C. was not maintainable at all.