This civil revision petition has been directed against the order dated 3-3-2005 passed in O.E.P. NoA23 of 2003 in O.S. No.684 of 2002 on the file of the 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional JuniorCivil Judge dismissed the execution petition filed by the petitioner/decree-holder seeking arrest and detention of the respondent/judgment-debtor in civil prison for realization of decretal amount.

2. The petitioner herein is the decree-holder and the respondent herein is the judgment-debtor. The petitioner obtained a money decree against the respondent in O.S.No.684 of 2002 to recover Rs.18,920/with costs and subsequent interest from 17-7-2003. He filed E.P. NoA23 of 2003 and sought for arrest and detention of the judgment debtor in civil prison. He filed his affidavit along with the execution petition stating that the respondent/judgment-debtor is a Talari getting monthly salary of Rs.2,000/- and also owning landed properties yielding an annual income of Rs.40,000/-. It is further averred that the respondent/judgment-debtor is doing seasonal business and thereby getting Rs.5,000/- per month. Thus the petitioner/ decree-holder stated that the respondent/ judgment-debtor having sufficient means neglected to pay the decretal amount.

3. The respondent/judgment-debtor entered appearance and filed counter resisting the execution petition. He took the plea that he has no means to pay the decretal amount.

4. The petitioner/decree-holder placed on record his affidavit as examination in chief and marked EX.A-1 certified copy of the I-B Register to show that the respondent/judgment debtor possessed lands apart from getting monthly income of Rs.2,000/-. The respondent/judgment-debtor did not choose to cross-examine the petitioner/decree-holder.

5. The executing Court, on considering the evidence brought on record by the petitioner/ decree-holder and on hearing the counsel for both the parties, recorded a finding that the respondent/judgment-debtor has sufficient means to pay the E.P. amount. However, executing Court dismissed the E.P. on the ground that the petitioner/decree-holder has alternative remedy of getting the properties of the respondent/judgment-debtor attached for realization of the E.P. amount. The order passed by the executing Court is under challenge in this civil revision petition.

6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/decree-holder and learned counsel appearing for the respondent/judgment-debtor.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/decree-holder submits that arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor is one of the several modes of the execution to recover the decretal amount and it is for the decree-holder to choose the mode of execution of his decree and it is no part of the duty of the executing Court to lay down or prescribe the mode of execution to be followed by the decree-holder. A further submission has been made that the executing Court having recorded a finding that the decree-holder proved sufficient means of the judgment-debtor ought not to have dismissed the E.P. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Guvvala Sudhakara Reddy v. Katamreddy Venugopala Reddy1.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/judgment-debtor submits that the respondent/judgment-debtor is an employee, and therefore, the petitioner/decree-holder ought not to have resorted to the arrest of the judgment-debtor and he should have proceeded against the salary or the properties of the respondent/judgment-debtor. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in A. Sambasiva Rao v. Rudru Bhaskara Rao2.

9. In A. Sambasiva Raos case (2 supra) there appears to be no finding that the respondent therein has sufficient means to discharge the decretal debt. Therefore, the said decision has no application to the facts of the case on hand.

10. Section 51 C.P.C. deals with procedure in execution and powe