IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2405 of 2006 Between: Gurrana Satyanarayana and another ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Karri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana .....RESPONDENT(S) HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2405 of 2006 ORDER: Petitioners, who are the judgment debtors, filed this revision under Section 115 of C.P.C. assailing the correctness of the order passed in the execution petition purportedly filed under Rule 37 of Order XXI and Section 55 of C.P.C. for arrest of the 1st petitioner in failing to discharge the liability under the decree. Admittedly, the decree is for recovery of money. In the counter filed by the 1st petitioner before the Court below an objection has been taken that they have filed an application in I.P.No.17 of 2001 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, with a prayer to declare him as an insolvent and, therefore, the contention of the petitioners is that no execution proceedings could have been proceeded against them. However, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said I.P. was ultimately allowed on 07.03.2006 and the 1st petitioner herein was declared as an insolvent and the order under revision was passed on 04.04.2006 by which date the petitioners could not obtain a certified copy of the order passed on 07.03.2006 and file the same before the Court below. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. Perused the material available on record. If really the 1st petitioner has already been declared as an insolvent, necessarily the incidence of such orders have to be gone into in the execution proceedings filed by the respondent- decree holder in pursuance of the decree for recovery of money. It seems that the I.P. was allowed. Admittedly, no such material was available in the Court below as the same was disposed of just prior to the orders passed by it. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 04.04.2006 in E.P.No.605 of 2002 in O.S.No.1294 of 2001 passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, is set aside and is remitted back to it for disposal afresh after giving notice and opportunity to both parties if they wish to let in evidence and in accordance with law. The petitioners shall make a copy of the order passed in the I.P. proceedings before the Court below. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J 15th July, 2010 CVRK