HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.R.P.No.5733 of 2010 Date : 25-3-2011 Between: Chivakala Bangari (died) and another .. Petitioner and Kanugujji Gavarayya (died) and another .. Respondent Counsel for petitioner : Sri K.Ramesh Kumar Counsel for respondent : None The court made the following : ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 22-11-2010 of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Rajam. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite service of notice, respondent No.2 has not entered appearance. The petitioner is the Judgement-debtor in O.S.No.200/2006. In execution of the decree in the said suit, respondent No.2 filed E.P.No.72/2008 for arrest of the petitioner. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Rajam, on 22-11- 2010, scribbled on the docket proceedings which to the extent the petitioner’s counsel deciphered and got typed separately, reads as under: “Payment of Rs.42,675/- on 21-11-10 ….. up to to- day. Payment not made. Respondent seeks time. Counsel for D.Hr. strongly oppose for granting adjournment. Since no payment and J.Dr. is evading and upon representation by Counsel for D.Hr., issue Warrant of arrest.” The manner in which the court below has passed the order, both in its form and its contents, leaves a lot to be desired. As regards the form, the docket writing reminds me of medical prescriptions which only the pharmacist used to the handwriting of the doctor can follow. The court below should have realised that even a docket order is a judicial order which should be easy to follow, lest it is susceptible of being misunderstood and misinterpreted. Coming to the contents, the cryptic expressions do not make proper sense. Even if its true purport is considered, the order is unsustainable. Under Section 51 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”), execution of a decree by detention of the Judgement-debtor in prison shall not be ordered unless after giving the Judgement-debtor an opportunity of showing cause why he should not be committed to prison and the court is inter alia satisfied and for reasons recorded in writing that the Judgement-debtor has or has had since the date of decree, the means to pay the amount of the decree or some substantial part thereof and refuses or neglects or has refused or neglected to pay the same. In the order under revision, the court below while refusing the request of the Judgement-debtor for an adjournment observed that since no payment has been made and the Judgement-debtor is evading payment, issued the arrest warrant. It is not stated in the order whether the said warrant was issued to ensure the presence of the Judgement-debtor or to send him to civil prison. For ensuring the presence of the Judgement-debtor, issuance of such a warrant is unnecessary because the respondent was obviously present, as reflected from the cryptic observation of the court i.e., “Respondent seeks time”. Before issuing arrest warrant for sending the Judgement- debtor to civil prison, the above noted provision requires to be complied with by the court below. Unless there is a specific finding on the basis of the material available before it that despite having sufficient means, the Judgement- debtor is evading payment, no arrest warrant can be issued. Viewed from any angle, the order under revision cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is set-aside. The lower court is directed to hold proper enquiry into the execution petition filed by the respondent and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the provisions of Sections 51, 55 and Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 of the Code. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated. ____________________ C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy.,J Date : 25-3-2011 AM