The revision petitioner is the decree-holder in E.P.No.146 of 2010 of the decree obtained as plaintiff in O.S.No.8 of 2008 against the respondent/judgment-debtor/defendant. Impugning the order of the Court, dated 12.09.2011, in the E.P. dismissing the prayer for arrest of the judgment-debtor by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, the present revision is maintained.

2. The contention mentioned in the grounds urged in the revision vis--vis the oral submissions during the course of hearing are that impugned order of the Executing Court is perverse and unsustainable and from ill-appreciation of the settled principles and propositions, the Executing Court should have adopt a pragmatic approach and the impugned order is erroneous and contrary to law and facts and should have been allowed the Execution Petition for arrest of the judgment- debtor and did not even go through the expression of this Court in 2011 (4) ALD 143 and thereby, sought for setting aside the dismissal order by allowing the revision and order arrest of the judgment- debtor.

3. Whereas, it is the submission of the counsel for the judgment- debtor/respondent to the revision that the impugned order of the lower Court is on contest by appreciation of the oral evidence of the decree- holder as PW.1 and another witness PW.2, besides that of respondent- judgment-debtor as RW.1 with four documents Exs.B.1 to B.4 are running in six pages supported by reasons and for this Court while sitting in revision, there is no illegality or impropriety and thereby sought dismissal of the revision.

4. Heard as referred supra and perused the other material on record from the grounds urged supra.

5. Order XXI Rule 37 C.P.C. reads as follows:

Discretionary power to permit judgment-debtor to show cause against detention in prison:-(1) Notwithstanding anything in these rules, where an application is for the execution of a decree for the payment of money by the arrest and detention in the civil prison of a judgment-debtor who is liable to be arrested in pursuance of the application, the Court [shall], instead of issuing a warrant for his arrest, issue a notice calling upon him to appear before the Court on a day to be specified in the notice and show cause why he should not be committed to the civil prison:

[Provided that such notice shall not be necessary if the Court is satisfied, by affidavit, or otherwise, that, with the object or effect of delaying the execution of the decree, the judgment-debtor is likely to abscond or leave the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court.]

(2) Where appearance is not made in obedience to the notice, the Court shall, if the decree-holder so requires, issue a warrant for the arrest of the judgment-debtor.

6. From the very proviso to the above Rule 37 sub-rule (1), though from sub-rule(1) it mandates by C.P.C. amended Act 21 of 1936 sub-stituting shall for may in saying in an application for arrest of the judgment-debtor for detention in civil prison for recovery of money where judgment-debtor liable to be arrested, the Court shall issue notice calling upon him to appear before the Court on a day to be specified to show-cause why shall not be committed to the civil prison rather than directly issuing warrant for his arrest; what the proviso says is such notice shall not be necessary if the Court is satisfied by affidavit, or otherwise, that, with the object of defeating or delaying the execution of the decree, the judgment-debtor is likely to abscond or leave the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court.

7. With reference to the A.P. amendment, same as Madras, with effect from 30.03.1967, the warrant for arrest of the judgment-debtor shall direct the officer to whom warrant entrusted to bring him before the Court with all convenient speed, unless the amount ordered to pay, together with interest and costs, which he is liable, be sooner paid or unless satisfaction of the Court be endorsed by the decree-holder on the warrant in th