ORDER:

The challenge in this civil revision petition is to the order dated 15.07.2013 in E.P.No.197 of 2010 in O.S.No.473 of 2004 passed by learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, allowing the petition filed under Order XXI Rule 37 CPC by the decree holder/1st respondent praying the execution Court to commit t</b></b></b>he</b></b> p</b>e</b></b>t</b></b></b>it</b></b></b>io</b>ne</b></b>r/1st</b></b></b> judgme</b></b>nt</b></b></b> de</b></b>bt</b></b></b>o</b>r t</b></b></b>o</b> civil p</b>riso</b>n in e</b></b>xe</b></b>cut</b></b></b>io</b>n o</b>f t</b></b></b>he</b></b>

decree in O.S.No.473 of 2004.

2. The 1st respondent/decree holder obtained a money decree a</</b>b</b>></</b>b</b>>g</b>a</</b>b</b>></</b>b</b>>in</</b>b</b>>s</b></b>t</b></</b>b</b>></</b>b</b>></</b>b</b>></</b>b</b>> </b></b></b>t</b></</b>b</b>></</b>b</b>></</b>b</b>></</b>b</b>>he</b></</b>b</b>></</b>b</b>> </b></b></b>p</</b>b</b>>e</b></</b>b</b>></</b>b</b>>t</b></</b>b</b>></</b>b</b>></</b>b</b>></</b>b</b>>it</b></</b>b</b>></</b>b</b>></</b>b</b>></</b>b</b>>io</b></b></</b>b</b>>n</</b>b</b>>e</b></</b>b</b>></</b>b</b>>r/</b>1s</b></b>t</b></</b>b</b>></</b>b</b>></</b>b</b>></</b>b</b>> </b></b></b>ju</b>d</b>g</b>me</b></</b>b</b>></</b>b</b>>n</</b>b</b>>t</b></</b>b</b>></</b>b</b>></</b>b</b>></</b>b</b>> </b></b></b>d</b>e</b></</b>b</b>></</b>b</b>>b</b>t</b></</b>b</b>></</b>b</b>></</b>b</b>></</b>b</b>>o</b></b></</b>b</b>>r </b></b></b>fo</b></b></</b>b</b>>r </b></b></b>Rs</b></b>.6</b>5,</b>58</b>4/</b>- </b></b></b>wit</b></</b>b</b>></</b>b</b>></</b>b</b>></</b>b</b>>h subsequent interest and he filed E.P.No.197 of 2010 for arrest of the p</b>e</b>t</b></b>it</b></b>io</b>ne</b>r/1st</b></b> judgme</b>nt</b></b> de</b>bt</b></b>o</b>r co</b>nt</b></b>e</b>nding t</b></b>hat</b></b> t</b></b>he</b> p</b>e</b>t</b></b>it</b></b>io</b>ne</b>r has be</b>e</b>n working as School Assistant in Zilla Parishad High School, Thammavaram, Kakinada Rural Mandal, and getting a monthly salary o</b>f </b>Rs</b>.1</b>6,</b>0</b>0</b>0</b>/- </b>and </b>thus</b> </b>having </b>s</b>ufficient </b>means</b> </b>to</b> </b>dis</b>charge </b>the decree amount, but still intentionally evaded to pay the amount.

3. The petitioner/1st judgment debtor mainly contended that the 1st r</b>es</b>po</b>n</b>d</b>en</b>t/d</b>ecr</b>ee ho</b>ld</b>er</b> alr</b>ead</b>y filed</b> an</b>o</b>ther</b> E.P. fo</b>r</b> attachin</b>g his</b> salary to realise the decree debt and additionally filed the E.P. for his arrest and therefore, the E.P. is not maintainable under law. He cannot be brought under arrest without proceeding against his properties.

4. The execution Court negatived the aforesaid contentions, rightly in my view, and observed that simultaneous execution proceedings for arrest as well as for other mode of realisation of the E</b>.P</b>. </b></b></b>a</b></b>m</b>o</b>u</b>n</b></b>t</b></b></b> </b></b></b>c</b>a</b></b>n</b></b> </b></b></b>b</b>e</b></b> </b></b></b>t</b></b></b>a</b></b>ke</b></b>n</b></b> </b></b></b>u</b>p</b> </b></b></b>a</b></b>n</b></b>d</b></b> </b></b></b>t</b></b></b>he</b></b> </b></b></b>1</b>s</b>t</b></b></b> </b></b></b>r</b>e</b></b>s</b>p</b>o</b>n</b></b>d</b></b>e</b></b>n</b></b>t</b></b></b>/d</b></b>e</b></b>c</b>r</b>e</b></b>e</b></b> </b></b></b>ho</b>ld</b></b>e</b></b>r</b> cannot be found fault in this regard. The execution Court further observed that admittedly the petitioner/1st judgment debtor is working a</b></b></b>s</b> </b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b>a</b></b></b> </b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b>Te</b></b>a</b></b></b>c</b>he</b></b>r</b> </b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b>a</b></b></b>n</b></b>d </b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b>dr</b>a</b></b></b>w</b>in</b></b>g </b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b>a</b></b></b> </b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b>mo</b></b>n</b></b>t</b>hl</b>y</b> </b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b>s</b>a</b></b></b>l</b>a</b></b></b>r</b>y</b> </b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b>