Order passed by Execution Court must be complied with.

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 111. 2006 in E.A.No.256 of 2006 in E.P.No.219 of 2005 in Arbitration Case No.3 of 2004 passed by the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, ordering arrest of the Petitioner under Order XXI Rule 41(3) C.P.C for disobedience of the order of the Court. The Judgment Debtor is the Revision Petitioner. For convenience, the parties are referred in their rank in E.P.No.219 of 2005 on the file of First Additional Subordinate Court, Erode.

2. Relevant facts are as follows:-The Revision Petitioner is a Constituent of the Decree Holder, who is a Trading Member of National Stock Exchange. The Judgment Debtor had entered into an Agreement with the Decree Holder on 112. 2002 and started trading at the Erode Branch of the Petitioner in the derivative segment. The Respondent / Judgment Debtor defaulted in making payments for the loss in transaction in derivatives instruments to the Petitioner / Decree Holder and thereby dispute arose between the Petitioner and the Respondent and the same had been referred to the National Stock Exchange of India Limited, who are the facilitators for the disputes in derivatives transactions in the National Stock Exchange. For resolving the dispute between the parties, an Arbitrator was appointed and the Arbitrator has passed an Award dated 110. 2004, directing the Respondent / Judgment Debtor to pay to the Petitioner / Decree Holder a sum of Rs.6,27,054.33 with an interest of 18% per annum from the date of award till the date of realisation.

3. The Decree was transmitted from City Civil Court, Chennai to First Additional Subordinate Court, Erode. For executing the Decree, the Petitioner / Decree Holder has filed E.P.No.219 of 2005 under O.21 R.37 C.P.C. before the First Additional Subordinate Court, Erode to realise the amount by arrest of the Respondent / Judgment Debtor.

4. The Judgment Debtor resisted the Execution Petition contending that he has no means and that he does not own movable or immovable properties as claimed by the Decree Holder. The Respondent mainly raised "no means" defence.

5. In E.P.No.219 of 2005, Enquiry was taken up. Both Petitioner and the Respondent have filed Proof Affidavit. The Judgment Debtor has filed Proof Affidavit alleging that he does not own movable or immovable properties. Regarding the averments in the Proof Affidavit, the Judgment Debtor was elaborately cross-examined.

6. In the Execution Proceedings when R.W.1 was in the box, on 07.07.2006, the Petitioner / Decree Holder has given Notice to the Respondent to cause Production of the documents - day to day accounts Ledger of Sriparvatham Textiles, Accounts of Sriparvatham Textiles maintained by the Respondent. The Respondent filed objection stating that he is not doing any business and as such no accounts are available with him.

7. E.A.No.256 of 2006:- Since the Respondent denied running of any business in the name of Sriparvatham Textiles, the Decree Holder has filed this Application under O.21 R.41 C.P.C seeking for a direction to the Respondent for production of details of his income and properties for the satisfaction of the decree, failing which to pass an order of arrest under O.21 R.41(3) C.P.C. In E.A.No.256 of 2006, the Court has held elaborate Enquiry and the Application was ordered on 111. 2006.

8. E.A.No.522 of 2006:- Inspite of allowing of E.A.No.256 of 2006 directing the Respondent to produce the details of his income and properties, the Judgment Debtor has not complied with the direction nor filed any affidavit stating the details of his income. Alleging non-compliance of the order in E.A.No.256 of 2006 and disobedience of that order, the Petitioner has filed this Application under O.21 R.41(3) C.P.C. According to the Petitioner, inspite of the order passed on 111. 2006 to produce the documents, the Judgment Debtor has not furnished the details of his income and properties. Arrest of the Judgment Debtor was ordered on 112. 2