The discretion of the Court to refuse simultaneous execution against the person and property of the judgment-debtor under Order 21 Rule 21 CPC was properly exercised, and the lack of satisfactory reason for filing subsequent Execution Petition was emphasized.

1 Heard both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondent.

2 This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/decree-holder under Section 115 C.P.C, challenging the order, dated 24.6.2010 made in E.P. No. 97 of 2009 in O.S. No. 163 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Polur, Tiruvannamalai District and to restore the same.

3 It is an admitted fact that the petitioner herein is the decree-holder. The suit in O.S. No. 163 of 2004 was filed by the petitioner against the respondent, seeking a money decree and the same was decreed, which reached finality. Pursuant to the decree, the petitioner herein filed E.P. No. 116 of 2006 before the Court below to bring the property belongs to the respondent/judgment-debtor for sale to realise the decree amount. While the Execution Petition in E.P. No. 116 of 2006 is pending, the petitioner herein filed another Execution Petition in E.P. No. 97 of 2009 under Order 21 Rule 21 and 22 and 37 of CPC, seeking arrest of the respondent/judgment-debtor, simultaneously to realise the decree amount payable to the petitioner herein. By the impugned order, the Court below dismissed the subsequent Execution Petition filed in E.P. No. 97 of 2009, seeking an order of arrest of the judgment-debtor. Aggreived by which, this revision has been preferred by the petitioner/decree-holder.

4 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to Order 21 Rule 21 CPC and submitted that simultaneous action to bring the property for sale and seeking arrest of the Judgment-Debtor to realise the amount are maintainable. According to him, there is no bar to arrest the respondent/judgment-debtor to realise Jthe decree amount, apart from bringing the property for sale. Learned counsel appealing for the petitioner relied on the following decisions:

1. SatishMinocha v. Punjab National Bank, AIR 1983 Madhya Pradesh 42

2. Venkannav. Firm C. Moolchand, AIR 1961 Andhra Pradesh 63

3. KamaldhariLai v. Kamleshwari Sahay, AIR 1939 Patna 380

4. Shyamshankarv. Nathuram, AIR 1934 Nagpur 140

5 In Venkannav. Firm C. Moolchand, AIR 1961 Andhra Pradesh 63, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that there is nothing in the or in any other law which lays down positively that several applications for execution of a decree could not be filed‘

6 It is not in dispute that the decree-holder can file separate Execution Petition against several judgment-debtors to realise the decree amount, for which there is no legal bar. However, the present revision is different from the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid case cited by the petitioner. Here in the instant case, the petitioner/decree-holder filed Execution Petition to bring the property of the respondent/judgment-debtor for sale. When the E.P is pending, the petitioner has filed the present Execution Petition in E.P. No. 97 of 2009 to arrest the judgment-debtor and send to him to prison.

7 Learned counsel for the respondent/judgment-debtor drew the attention of this Court to Order 21 Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as follows:

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

8 In the impugned order, that is available at page numbers 75 and 76 of the typed set filed by the petitioner herein, the Court below has categorically averred that the petitioner has not stated any reason on the necessity of filing the fresh Execution Petition in E.P. No. 97 of 2009, seeking arrest of the respondent/judgment-debtor, while the earlier in E.P. No. 116 of 2006, seeking an order to bring the property belongs to the Judgment-Debtor for sale is pending.

9 As per the findings of the Court below, for filing subsequent E.P, to arrest the respondent/judgment-debtor, the petitioner has not stated any reason, acceptable by the Court.

10 Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/judgment-debtor submitted that the