1. These two revision petitions are against two different orders of the same date 7.4.1989, for payment of one-third of the decree amount in two different suits, both against the petitioner. One of the said orders was passed in E.A 350 of 1984 in E.P. 41 of 1983. The said E.A. is to set aside the ex parte order of arrest passed on 11.7.1984 in E.P. 41 of 1983. The other order was passed in E.P. No. 69 of 1986. Both the said E.P.s are for arrest and detention of the judgment debtor.

2. Both the orders are misconceived. In execution petitions for arrest and detention, after notice to the judgment-debtor, if the judgment debtor appears before court, then the court has to adopt the procedure provided under O. 21, R. 40 C.P.C. for determining whether the judgment debtor can be committed to civil prison, taking into account what is provided in S. 51 Proviso C.P.C. Even in the case of the abovesaid E.A 359 of 1984, for setting aside the ex parte order of arrest, the Court has to see whether there was sufficient cause for the non-appearance of the judgment-debtor on the relevant date, namely, 11.7.1984. If there was sufficient cause, it can restore the E.P., if not it should dis