P.K. Shamsuddin, President- This Revision Petition is filed against the order passed by the District Forum, Alappuzha, in E.P. No. 122/94 in O.P. 455/93.

2. An order was passed by the District Forum directing the opposite party to refund Rs.81,500/- together with interest at 18% per annum from 7-4-1992 to the complainant within one month from the date of the order. The opposite party did not comply with the order and an Execution Petition was filed. An objection was filed by the opposite party stating that he had no means to pay the amount. The complainant filed an affidavit stating that the opposite party has got sufficient means to pay the amount and the non-compliance of the order is wilful1 and deliberate.

3. The District Forum acting upon the affidavit filed by the complainant stating that the opposite party has means passed an order stating that the non-compliance is wilfull are deliberate to avoid payment and ordered to issue a warrant for the arrest of the judgment debtor. In the revision the order was challenged.

4. In this revision petition learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the order under attack is unsustainable and that the order has to be treated as one passed under section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act which reads as follows:

"Every order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission may be enforced by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission as the case may be, in the same• manner as if it were a decree or order made by a court in a suit pending therein and it shall be lawful for the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission to send, in the event of its inability to execute it, such order to the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, -

(a) in the case of an order against a company, the registered office of the company is situated, or

(b) in the case of an order against any other person, the place where the person concerned voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, is situated, and thereupon, the court to which the order is to sent, shall execute the order as if it were a decree or order sent to it for execution."

5. It is clear from section 25 that it would be open for the Forum to execute its order as if it were a decree. Section 51 of the Civil Procedure Code deals with the powers of Court to execute a decree

(a) By delivery of any property specifically decreed;

(b) By attachment and sale or by sale without attachment of any property;

(c) By arrest and detention in prison for such period not exceeding the period specified in Section 58 Where arrest and detention is permissible under that section.

(d) By appointing a receiver; or

(e) In such other manner as the nature of the relief granted may require.

6. Order XXI Rule 37 CPR says where an application is for execution of decree for payment of money by arrest and detention in 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. The proviso to Rule 37 says 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 sub Rule 2 says that 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.

7. Rule 40 says that when a judgment debtor appears in obedience to notice or is brought before court on arrest, the Court shall conduct an enquiry as detailed in Order XXI, Rule 40. The court shall hear the decree-holder and take all such evidence as may be produced