1. These two revision petitions are sought to be filed against common order passed by the lower Court refusing to recall arrest warrant and refusing to give direction to the decree holder (DHr) to proceed against attached properties of the judgment debtor (JDr) or granting instalments @ Rs.1,000/- to the JDr. The matter arises out of execution proceedings relating to execution of a money decree which was passed on 21.10.2002 for Rs.2,56,036/- with subsequent interest at 12% per annum. Though previously several execution petitions were filed, the DHr. was unsuccessful in getting his money due under the decree. Inspite of the petitioner/JDr. was arrested in previous execution and brought to Court, when there was award from Lok Adalat with consent of both the parties, the JDr. did not honour the said award and became a defaulter. Therefore, the DHr. filed the present E.P. for arrest and detention of the judgment debtor in prison.

2. In Jolly George Varghese v The Bank of Cochin ((1980) 2 Supreme Court Cases 360) though the Supreme Court observed that to be poor, in this land of ‘daridra narayana’, is no crime and to recover debts by the procedure of putting one in prison is too fragrantly violative of Article 21 unless there is proof of the minimal fairness of his wilful failure to pay in spite of his sufficient means and absence of more terribly pressing claims on his means. The Supreme Court held that if the requirements of law as per Order XXI Rule 37 CPC are not complied with, it amounts flagrant violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, arrest of a judgment debtor by itself is not offending Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If the arrest is ordered in flagrant violation of the requirements of law provided in CPC, then only the violation of procedure amounts to violation of Article 21.

3. Placing reliance on Marepally Narasimha Reddy v Kancharla Kumara Swamy (2011(4) ALT, 3), Dumpala Syamala Rao v Killi Markendeswara Rao (2011(4) ALT 196), E.N.Satyanarayana v Smt.Chowdamma (2009(5) ALT 251), Pothuneedi Laxmana Rao v Kadasu Muneswara Rao (2005 (4) ALD833), K.Harikrishna v Dr.L.Raghunatha Rao (2004(5) ALT 52) and Kalidindi Rama Raju v Vijaya Bank (2002(2) ALD Supplement, 300) of this Court. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that when there is alternative remedy of realizing the decretal amount by way of proceeding against immovable properties of the JDr, arrest of the JDr. cannot resorted to. At the same time, it may be noted that in none of the above judgments, it was stated that arrest of a male judgment debtor in execution of a money decree is illegal. The above decisions only cautioned the lower Courts to consider reasonableness and fairness of ordering arrest of the judgment debtor straightaway. None of the said judgments considered the provision relating to Order XXI Rule 21 CPC which indicates enabling a decree holder to file simultaneous execution petitions.

4. Coming to legality and reasonableness of the order passed by the lower Court, admittedly the petitioner is having huge landed property of Ac.10.00. He has also got business of his own. According to the petitioner’s counsel, JDr. is doing repairing business in watches and cell phones. Whereas, the respondent’s counsel stated that the petitioner is doing watch business and is having Titan Watch Show room. According to DHr, the petitioner is earning Rs.30,000/- per month. He has also got his house property which is stated to be worth Rs.10,00,000/-. The petitioner contended before the lower Court that he was not able to raise any money from his immovable properties as his immovable properties are attached and he was prevented from either selling or mortgaging his properties. There is no prohibition for sale or mortgage of his attached properties in case it is for discharge of the decree debt herein in execution of which the properties were attached. The petitioner is not a ‘daridra narayana’ as observed by the Supreme