K. Harilal, J.—The petitioner herein is the petitioner/claimant, in E.A.No.31 of 2016 in A.O.P.No.15 of 2013, on the files of the District Court, Thalassery, and the respondent is the respondent therein. An arbitration award has been passed in A.O.P.No.15 of 2013, directing the respondent herein to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.10,09,983/– with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 26.9.2012, till the date of realisation with cost of Rs.4,405/–. The petitioner filed Execution Petition No.13 of 2016, before the District Court, Thalassery under Order XXI Rules 11, 37 and 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the C.P.C.’) for executing the award by arrest and detention of the Judgment Debtor in civil prison.

2. During the pendency of the said Execution Petition, he came to know that the respondent herein holds landed properties. In that context, he filed another Execution Petition under Order XXI Rules 54, 64 and 66 of the C.P.C., for execution of the decree by attachment, proclamation and sale of the immovable property belonging to the respondent herein. The office of the District Court has not numbered the said Execution Petition. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed E.A.No.31 of 2016, seeking a direction to number the Execution Petition. The court below found that two separate Execution Petitions, seeking arrest and detention and by attachment and sale of immovable property respectively are not maintainable at a time. On the above finding, the court below dismissed the said E.A. with a direction to return the Execution Petition to the petitioner, so as to file a comprehensive Execution Petition for arrest and detention and sale of immovable property, after withdrawing the already existing Execution Petition.The legality and propriety of the reasonings, whereby the court below dismissed E.A.No.31 of 2016 with the direction therein, are under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner advanced arguments, assailing the findings of the court below that simultaneous execution against the person and property by two separate Execution Petitions are not maintainable. So also, the direction given to the petitioner to withdraw the existing Execution Petition and to file a comprehensive Execution Petition is legally unsustainable, as the Decree Holder has the right to amend the earlier Execution Petition. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Decree Holder is at liberty to file different Execution Petitions, at a time, seeking different mode of execution, to enforce the decree.

5. It stands undisputed that earlier, the petitioner has filed Execution Petition No.13 of 2016, before the District Court, Thalassery under Order XXI Rules 11, 37 and 38 of the C.P.C. for executing the award by arrest and detention of the Judgment Debtor in civil prison and that Execution Petition is still pending there and during the pendency of the said Execution Petition, the petitioner has again preferred the present Execution Petition under Order XXI Rules 54, 64 and 66 of the C.P.C. for execution of the same decree, by attachment, proclamation and sale of the immovable property belonging to the respondent herein. According to the impugned order, the finding of the learned District Judge is that simultaneous execution by arrest and detention and by attachment and sale of immovable property is possible on single comprehensive Execution Petition only and separate Execution Petitions for the same, at a time, are not maintainable, in view of Order XXI Rules 30 and 21 of the C.P.C. But, to support the Execution Petitions, one after the another, at the same time, seeking execution by arrest and detention and by attachment of the immovable property separately cannot be maintained.

6. In the above context, the question to be considered is, whether different Execution Petitions, seeking execution of the decree by ar