1. Heard.

2. The above revision is directed against the order dated 28. 1994 in E.P. No. 205 of 1993 in Arbitration Case No.81 of 1993, on the file of the learned Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, arresting the revision petitioner, which reads as follows :

" Payment not effect today. Heard both sides. Perused the affidavit, petition, affidavit and the counter and there is sufficient grounds. Arrest by 30.9.1994.

3. Ms. Asha, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, invited my attention to Order 21, Rule 31, 37, 39 and 40.

4. According to Ms. Asha, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, a reading of Order 21, Rule 31, 37, 39 and 40 would show that the Execution Court is under a duty to hold an enquiry and to give a finding as to the current means of the judgment debtor to discharge the decree before the order of arrest under Order 21, Rule 37. In this regard, she relies upon the decision in Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin, AIR 1980 SC 470 and Anama Gounder v. A.C. Ponnusami, AIR 1982 Mad. 81.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further contends that Order 21, Rule 39 presupposes that the Execution Court is bound t