THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.1083 OF 2009 23-04-2010 BETWEEN; A.Narayana Rao son of Chandamouli ...petitioner vs. C.C.K.R.Chits and Finance (P) Ltd., Ongole and others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.1083 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER: The revision petitioner is the 4th respondent in E.P.No.444 of 2008, and one of the judgment debtors. The 1st respondent obtained judgment and decree dated 27-11-2000 in O.S.No.900 of 2008 against the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein for recovery in an amount of Rs.9,92,750/-. Earlier, the decree holder filed execution petition and some amounts were realised but a large portion of the decretal amount remains unsatisfied. Consequently, E.P.No.444 of 2008 was revived at the instance of the decree holder for realisation of the balance decretal amount pleading therein that despite having a house and cash of Rs.5 lakhs apart from movable and immovable properties and having an income of Rs.20,000/- towards salary, the 4th respondent in E.P/ the revision petitioner is avoiding to repay the same. After considering the counter to the E.P filed by the revision petitioner and the other JDRs, the court below by the order impugned directed issuing of arrest warrant against respondent Nos.3 and 4 (the 4th respondent being the revision petitioner herein). The Court below clearly recorded that the revision petitioner has adequate means and a lucrative employment and despite having the means to repay the amount due under the decree in O.S.No.900 of 1998, failed wantonly to comply with the decretal obligation and is liable to the due process of law including by way of arrest and detention in civil prison and accordingly directed issue of arrest warrant. The singular ground urged in this revision is that the court below failed to examine the issue whether whenever there is another mode of recovery available, recourse to the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 37 CPC is not permissible. Rule.37 of Order XXI CPC enjoins that where an application for execution of decree for the payment of money, for arrest and detention in civil prison of the judgment debtor who is liable to be arrested in pursuance of the application, the court instead of issuing a warrant for the arrest, shall issue a notice calling upon him to appear before the Court to show cause as to why he be not committed to civil prison and thereafter on considering the submissions if any, may issue the warrant for arrest. There is no basis, on text or authority for the assumption by the revision petitioner that the decree holder should pursue alternative modes of enforcement of a decree conditional precedent to pursuing execution under Order XXI, Rule 37 CPC. There is thus no infirmity in the order of the Court below, warranting interference. There are no merits. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 23rd APRIL 2010. TSNR