L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 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.

( 4 ) SRI P. V. Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that it is only after the petitioner expressed his inability to pay the decretal amount, after appearing before the executing Court, that the order under revision was passed and no exception can be taken to it.

( 5 ) THE short question that falls for consideration in this revision is, as to whether the executing Court followed the procedure prescribed in the C. P. 13. , before ordering the committal of the petitioner to civil prison. The fact that there existed a decree against the petitioner and that he failed to discharge the liability under the decree, are not in dispute.

( 6 ) SECTION 51 and Order 21, Rule 37 c. P. C. , provide for arrest of a judgment- debtor, in the event of his failure to discharge the obligation, despite possessing adequate means. The relevant provisions were challenged before the Supreme Court as being violative of Article 21 of the constitution of India and Article 11 of international Covenant on Civil and Political rights. While the former prohibits deprivation of life or personal liberty, except in accordance with procedure prescribed by law, the latter mandates that no one shall be imprisoned, merely on the ground of his inability to fulfil contractual obligations. In jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin (supra), after taking into account the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India, convention, and C. P. C. , this Court held that since the protection accorded under section 51, and various rules under Order 21, is adequate, they cannot be said to be unconstitutional. It is for this reason that any step taken in the matter of arrest of a judgment debtor for his failure to pay the decretal amount should strictly conform to the prescribed procedure.

( 7 ) IN Kasi Subbaiah Mudali v. Kasi veeraswamy Mudali, (supra), this Court had an occasion to delve into the procedure prescribed under Order 21, Rule 37 C. P. C. , and the importance of various steps provided therein, in the matter of arrest. It was held inter alia as under: "para-7. A plain reading of Rule 37 would show that it contemplates 3 situations viz. , (a) The executing Court shall issue notice calling upon the judgment-debtor to appear before the Court on a date to be specified and show-cause as to why he should not be committed to civil prison. (Rule 37 (1) ). (b) The Court can straightaway issue warra

Click Here to Read the rest of this document