ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner against the Order, dated 31.03.2023 passed in E.P.No.161 of 2019 in O.S.No.48 of 2018 on the file of Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

2. Originally the suit in O.S. No.48 of 2018 was filed before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole (for short “the Court below), for recovery of the suit amount. The same was decreed with costs by the Court below vide judgment dated 15.07.2019. Thereafter, respondent/D.Hr, approached the petitioner/J.Dr and requested him to discharge the decree amount, but in vain. Further, the petitioner/J.Dr is drawing salary of Rs.72,000/- per month, earning Rs.20,000/- per month on money lending business, has a house worth of Rs.40,00,000/- but he is intentionally avoiding to honour the decree and the petitioner/J.Dr shifted his residence beyond the jurisdiction of this Court and it is very difficult to recover the amount form the J.Dr. hence, the respondent/D.Hr preferred EP.No.161 of 2019 before the Court below. The same was allowed with costs vide order dated 31.03.2023 and ordered the arrest of J.Dr towards realization of the decretal amount and also issued arrest warrant against the J.Dr under Order XXI Rule 38 of CPC on payment of process. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri P. Pavan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Naga Praveen.V., learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the material available on record.

4. As seen from the Proceeding sheet, this Court vide order, dated 13.04.2023, in I.A No.1 of 2023, has granted stay of arrest of petitioner/J.Dr in E.P.no.161 of 2019 in O.S No.48 of 2019 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, till 27.04.2023, in view of the law laid down by the composite High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Chalapathi Chit Fund (P) Ltd., Ongole vs. B. Rajasekhar and others1 and the same is extended from time to time. Thereafter, on 13.07.2023, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to get instructions from his client

1 2013 (6) ALD 625

with regard to payment of decretal amount in two (02)

installments.

5. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the Court below is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. He submits that the E.P. which was filed by the D.Hr under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 of CPC not maintainable against the petitioner/J.Dr as he is a Government employee and there is a provision for recovery of decree amount by way of salary attachment and the petitioner/J.Dr is getting salary of Rs.90,000/-, the D.Hr has to recover the decree amount by way of attachment of salary instead of seeking his arrest. He further submits that the Court below went wrong in holding that as the petition is maintainable and the same is allowed instead of dismissed. The Court below allowed the E.P. without giving any reasonable ground and the reasons given by the Court below are not sound and tenable and ordering arrest, amounts to depriving the life and liberty of the petitioner.

6. To support his contention, learned counsel has relied upon a case of Chalapathi Chit Fund’s case (supra), and submits that under Order XXI Rule 30 read with Section 51 CPC, the decree holder can simultaneously seek execution of the decree by delivery of property specifically decreed; by attachment and sale or by sale without attachment of any property; by arrest and detention in prison for such period not exceeding the period specified in Section 58, where arrest and detention is permission under that section or appointing a Receiver.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner/J.Dr is drawing net salary of Rs.18,600/- only after deductions and that seeking arrest of the petitioner/J.Dr is not maintainable as no prior notice was issued to the petitioner/J.Dr. The filing of the execution petition seeking arrest o