( 1. ) THE Civil Revision Petitioner/Respondent/Defendant/ Judgment Debtor has filed the present Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 22.01.2004 passed in E.P.No.4 of 2002 in O.S.No.180 of 1996 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Pudukkottai.

( 2. ) THE Executing Court while passing the order in E.P.No.4 of 2002 in O.S.No.180 of 1996 on 22.01.2004, has among other things observed that '... any act of the respondent disturbing the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner while decree is in force, amounts to contempt and therefore the respondent is liable for punishment and resultantly, ordered issuance of notice to the respondent for appearing before it and explain as to why he should not be sentenced to civil prison.'

The learned Counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtor submits that the order of the Executing Court in E.P.No.4 of 2002 in O.S.No.180 of 1996 dated 22.01.2004, is contrary to law and unsustainable and as a matter of fact, the procedures envisaged under Order 21 Rule 32(1) and Order 21 Rule 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure have not been adhered to by the Executing Court.

( 3. ) IT is the contention of the learned Counsel for