ORDER :

1. The challenge in this civil revision petition is to the order dated 15.07.2013 in E.P.No.197 of 2010 in O.S.No.473 of 2004 passed by learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, allowing the petition filed under Order XXI Rule 37 CPC by the decree holder/1st respondent praying the execution Court to commit the petitioner/1st judgment debtor to civil prison in execution of the decree in O.S.No.473 of 2004.

2. The 1st respondent/decree holder obtained a money decree against the petitioner/1st judgment debtor for Rs.65,584/- with subsequent interest and he filed E.P.No.197 of 2010 for arrest of the petitioner/1st judgment debtor contending that the petitioner has been working as School Assistant in Zilla Parishad High School, Thammavaram, Kakinada Rural Mandal, and getting a monthly salary of Rs.16,000/- and thus having sufficient means to discharge the decree amount, but still intentionally evaded to pay the amount.

3. The petitioner/1st judgment debtor mainly contended that the 1st respondent/decree holder already filed another E.P. for attaching his salary to realise the decree debt and additionally filed the E.P. for his arrest and therefore, the E.P. is not maintainable under law. He cannot be brought under arrest without proceeding against his properties.

4. The execution Court negatived the aforesaid contentions, rightly in my view, and observed that simultaneous execution proceedings for arrest as well as for other mode of realisation of the E.P. amount can be taken up and the 1st respondent/decree holder cannot be found fault in this regard. The execution Court further observed that admittedly the petitioner/1st judgment debtor is working as a Teacher and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.16,000/- per month and thus having resources, but still he wilfully neglected to pay the decree amount and therefore, the E.P. for arrest is maintainable. Accordingly, the execution Court allowed the E.P. and issued arrest warrant against the petitioner/1st judgment debtor. Hence the civil revision petition at the instance of the petitioner/1st judgment debtor.

5. Heard Sri Bokka Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner/1st judgment debtor and Sri T. Ravikumar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/decree holder.

6. At the outset, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. Order XXI Rule 30 CPC governs the simultaneous execution of a money decree. It reads thus:

“Decree for payment of money – Every decree for the payment of money, including a decree for the payment of money as the alternative to some other relief, may be executed by the detention in the civil prison of the judgment-debtor, or by the attachment and sale of his property, or by both.”

The above rule says that a money decree, which is in its main form or as an alternative one, may be executed by decree holder by seeking judgment debtor’s detention in civil prison, or by attachment in sale of his property and most importantly ‘or by both’. It is needless to emphasise that the employment of the words ‘or by both’ is an indicative of conferring choice on decree holder to choose either or both the modes of execution for realisation of his decree amount. There can be no demur so far as the said discretion of decree holder is concerned.

a) It is also pertinent to refer Rule 21 at this juncture. It reads thus:

“Simultaneous execution – The Court may, in its discretion, refuse execution at the same time against the person and property of the judgment-debtor”

This rule speaks about the discretion of the Court to refuse simultaneous execution of a decree against the person and property of judgment debtor. This implies, when in a money decree, the decree holder simultaneously proceeds against Judgment debtor for sale of his property for realisation of the decree amount and also seeks his arrest and detention in civil prison, the Court may refuse.

b) When the above two provisions are studied conjunctively and examined meticulously, whi