The court emphasized the importance of strict compliance with the provisions of Order 21 Rule 41(2) and (3) CPC and the need for the executing court to consider the judgment debtor's compliance with the court's directions.

C.R.P.NPD.No.3371 of 2008: This revision has been filed against the order granting police aid in E.A.No.488 of 2007 in E.P.No.219 of 2005 in award No. F&O CH 203/04 an application for the grant of police aid for the arrest of the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in both the revisions would submit in his argument that the lower court had an erroneous view and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for recalling the arrest warrant issued against the petitioner but had also ordered police aid to effect the arrest warrant and it has not considered the concept of issuing arrest warrant under Order 21 Rule 41 (3) CPC but it had mechanically passed an order when it was complied by the petitioner as per Order 21 Rule 41(2) CPC. He would further submit in his argument that it is true that the revision filed by the petitioner in C.R.P.NPD.No.58 of 2007 against the order passed in E.A.No.256 of 2006 questioning the arrest, was dismissed but in the said order it has been ordered to keep open E.A.No.256 of 2006 and E.A.No.522 of 2006 and on such opening of those petitions, the petitioner had complied with Order 21 Rule 41(2) CPC by filing an affidavit subsequent to the disposal of the revision and therefore, the order passed under Order 21 Rule 41(3) CPC cannot be continued at this stage. He would also submit in his argument that this court has come to a conclusion in the earlier revision that the petitioner has filed his objections stating that he is not doing any business and on not complying with the direction ordered under Order 212 Rule 41(2) CPC it had confirmed the order passed by the execution court. He would also submit in para 19 of the said order it has been categorically found by this court that the petitioner has not complied with Order 21 Rule 41(2) CPC to the direction issued by the executing court to produce the documents shown as assets and income and the same was not complied with and after the confirmation of order of arrest passed by this court in the aforesaid revision, it had also ordered to keep open E.A.256 of 2006 and E.A.522 of 2006 where the direction of arrest of the petitioner was ordered. He would further submit in his argument that the petitioner has thereafter filed an affidavit as contemplated under Order 21 Rule 41(2) CPC regarding his assets and therefore, the order passed by the lower court to arrest the petitioner should have been recalled and the application filed by the petitioner to that effect was not considered but dismissed. He would further submit in his argument that contrary to the provisions, the lower court had also ordered police help to the decree holder for arresting the judgment debtor on a civil liability. Therefore, he would request the court to interfere and set aside the order passed by the lower court in dismissing the plea to recall arrest warrant and to reverse the ordering of police aid to cause the arrest of the petitioner.

3. No appearance on behalf of the respondent.

4. I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also perused the papers and the orders passed by the lower court and the order of this court made in C.R.P.NPD.No.58 of 2007 dated 01.02.2007. The admitted facts would be that the petitioner is a judgment debtor against whom the respondent has launched an execution for arresting him in the event of not paying the decree amount. The petitioner has disputed his means to pay the decree amount in his counter and therefore, the enquiry has been commenced in the EP. In the meanwhile, an application has been filed under Order 21 Rule 41 CPC in E.A.No.256 of 2006 seeking for a direction against the judgment debtor to state his assets before the court and it was duly ordered by the lower court. Since the judgment debtor did not furnish particulars an application in E.A.No.522 of 2006 was filed by the decree holder and the lower court had passed an order of arrest for willful