ORDER :

1. This revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C. is filed by the J.Dr. aggrieved by the order, dated 28.01.2025, passed in E.P.No.60 of 2022 in O.S.No.393 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, filed by the respondent herein under Order XXI, Rules 37 & 38 C.P.C.

2. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows:

a. The suit, O.S.No.393 of 2015, was filed by K. Ravi Chandra Reddy for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,95,000/- on the foot of an agreement of sale, dated 12.09.2014, against the defendant, K. Pandu Ranga Reddy. The said suit was decreed on 16.02.2022.

b. Thereafter, E.P.No.60 of 2022 was filed on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, and the Court ordered for arrest of the defendant / J.Dr., K.Pandu Ranga Reddy, on 04.04.2024.

Subsequently, the D.Hr. also obtained police aid against the J.Dr.

c. The J.Dr., K. Pandu Ranga Reddy filed insolvency petition vide I.P.No.19 of 2024. The D.Hr. has got arrested the J.Dr. on 17.12.2024 and was produced before the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. On 17.12.2024, the Court ordered as follows:

“J. Dr produced on execution of the warrant. Already he filed I.P.No.19 of 2024 for obtaining protection order, call on 28.01.2025. J.Dr is directed to be released on execution of the bond.”

d. The J.Dr executed personal bond as per the direction of the executing Court and was released.

3. Later, on 28.01.2025, the execution Court directed the issuance of a fresh warrant. The docket order impugned in the revision reads as follows:

“D. Hr called absent. J.Dr called present. Protection order not filed by J.Dr. Hence, issue fresh arrest warrant against J.Dr under Order 21, R.38 CPC along with police aid, on payment of process.

Call on 28-02-2025.”

4. The revision petitioner raised mainly the following grounds:

a. Since the revision petitioner filed insolvency petition, the execution Court ought to have dismissed the execution petition.

b. The direction of the execution Court to produce ‘protection order’ from the insolvency Court is not correct as the protection order could be granted under Section 31 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, only after adjudication of the petitioner as an insolvent and not during the pendency of the insolvency proceedings as was also held by this High Court in Rachamalla Nagi Reddy Vs. Pasupula Naganna, 2004 (6) ALT 220.

c. The subsequent issuance of arrest warrant with the police aid on 28.01.2025 is illegal;

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner / J.Dr. submitted that as per Section 55(4) C.P.C., when the petitioner / J.Dr. expresses his intention to apply to the Court to be declared as an insolvent and furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Court that he will, within one month, so apply and that he would appear whenever called upon in any proceeding or upon the decree in execution of which he was arrested and the Court may release him from arrest and in case, he fails to apply, the Court may direct the security to be realized or commit him to the civil prison in execution of the decree. He further submitted that as there is no provision for granting interim protection order, re-arrest of JDr., cannot be ordered till the proceedings of adjudication of insolvency are concluded, or else, the object of Section 55(4) C.P.C. would be defeated in releasing the J.Dr. to apply for such adjudication.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner / J.Dr. relied on the decision in Sanapala Narasamma and Ors. Vs. Mallana Laxminarayana and Ors., AIR 2000 AP 219 wherein it was held at paragraph No.12 as follows:

“12. Apparently, there is a conflict of views taken in Sinnaswamy Chettiar v. Aligi Goundan and others, AIR 1924 Mad 893(1) and Nallagatti Goundan v. Ramana Goundan, AIR 1925 Mad 170. Though in Sinnaswamy Chettiar v. Aligi Goundan (supra), there is no discussion about powers of the Court under Section 5 of Provincial Insolvency Act, but it has been held categorically that unless the judgme