( 1 ) HEARD both sides.

( 2 ) THIS civil revision petition is directed against the order and decree, dated 22. 10. 2003, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge at Kumool, allowing E. P. No. 258 of 2002 in o. S. No. 53 of 2001 filed under Order 21, rule 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking arrest of the judgment-debtor.

( 3 ) THE petitioner herein is the judgment-debtor and the respondent is the decree-holder.

( 4 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the petitioner and the respondent will be referred to as "the judgment-debtor and decree-holder" respectively.

( 5 ) THE facts, which are not in disputes, are that the judgment-debtor suffered a decree in the said suit and the decree-holder filed the present E. P. , seeking arrest and commit the judgment-debtor to civil prison.

( 6 ) THE judgment-debtor filed counter-affidavit stating that he has been working as an officer in Sangameshwara Grameena bank at Mahaboobnagar; that he is getting a sum of Rs. 15,000. 00 per month towards salary; that the decree-holder ought to have filed an application for attachment of the salary of the judgment-debtor and that only with an intention to cause harassment to the judgment-debtor, the decree-holder has filed the present E. P. , seeking arrest and commit the judgment-debtor to civil prison. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the judgment-debtor has no mala fide or wilful intention to avoid the payment and that the decree may be executed by attaching his salary.

( 7 ) THE contentions of the decree-holder and that the judgment-debtor was working as an officer in Sangameshwara grameena Bank at Mahaboobnagar; that the judgment-debtor owns a house at Kumool and had sufficient means to pay the E. P. , amount in lumpsum; that since the judgment-debtor had been postponing the payment in spite of repeated demands, the present E. P. , is filed seeking arrest of the judgment-debtor and commit him to the civil prison.

( 8 ) THE Court below having gone into the merits of the case and basing on "the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the judgment-debtor was having sufficient means to pay the E. P. , amount and since he neglected to pay the same, the judgment-debtor was liable to be arrested and be committed to the civil prison for realisation of the E. P. , amount.

( 9 ) IT is the contention of the learned counsel for the judgment-debtor that since it was the specific case of the judgment- debtor that he was an officer in the grameena Bank and since he was agreeable for attachment of his salary for realisation of the decretal amount, the Court below was not justified in ordering arrest of the judgment-debtor.

( 10 ) THE said contentions were repelled by the learned Counsel for the decree-holder on the ground that the judgment-debtor in spite of having sufficient means by owning a house at Kurnool, not substantially and being an officer of Grameena Bank, he neglected to pay the decretal amount having sufficient means.

( 11 ) THE Court below passed the impugned order after distinguishing a decision of this Court reported in Kalindindi Rama raju v. Vijaya Bank, 2001 (2) An. WR 184 (AP), and also distinguished another judgment of this Court in Vemanarayana v. Sakku Bai, 1994 (4) ALT 422, which was referred to by the learned Judge of this court in Kalindindi Rama Raju s case (supra ).

( 12 ) IN my view, the learned Judge of this Court (Justice P. S. Narayana) had elaborately considered all the aspects and settled the issue placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin, air 1980 SC 470 and Vemanarayana s case (supra) and also the judgments of various other High Courts and Supreme court and formulated certain guidelines to be borne in mind while dealing with the applications filed under Order 21, Rule 37. No reiteration, in view of the observations made in the two cases cited supra, is necessary.

( 13 ) IN K. Karunakar Shetty v