THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3337 of 2010 Date:31.10.2011 Between: Chandankeri Govindappa ..... Petitioner/JDr. AND Sanaka Ramakrishna Rao .....Respondent/DHr. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3337 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is laid by the judgment-debtor in E.P.No.1 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Tandur. The decree-holder filed a suit in O.S.No.443 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. He obtained a decree for a sum of `.50,000/- together with interest totalling more than `.1,00,000/-. He got the decree transferred to the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Tandur. 2. When E.P.No.1 of 2008 was filed for the arrest of the judgment-debtor, the learned Judge ordered for the arrest of the judgment-debtor. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is laid. 3. Sri G. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the judgment-debtor/revision petitioner contends that the very E.P.No.1 of 2008 is not maintainable when E.P.No.17 of 2005 is pending. After the transfer of the decree, the decree-holder filed E.P.No.17 of 2005 on the file of the Execution Court seeking for the attachment of the property of the judgment-debtor. 4. The E.P.No.17 of 2005 is still pending. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the judgment-debtor that when E.P.No.17 of 2005 is pending, the decree- holder cannot proceed against the judgment-debtor for the arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor. I am afraid that this contention cannot be countenanced. A decree- holder can not only choose the mode of the execution of the decree but he is also entitled to invoke alternative methods of the execution of the decree. Ultimately it is the execution of the decree that counts. Indeed the decree- holder could have “not pressed” E.P.No.17 of 2005 when he laid E.P.No.1 of 2008. However, merely because E.P.No.17 of 2005 remained pending on the file, it does not mean that E.P No.1 of 2008 for the arrest and detention of the judgment- debtor in civil prison is not maintainable. I am not able to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard. 5. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the judgment-debtor that the decree-holder ought to have filed an affidavit for the arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor, the failure to do so would offend Order 21 Rule 11A CPC and that the decree-holder consequently shall be non suited in the execution petition. He placed reliance upon Gudikandula Narsaiah Vs Gudikandula Veeraiah[1] contending that affidavit under Order 21 Rule 11A CPC is mandatory. On the other hand, the Court in that case held that it was for the Execution Court to decide whether affidavit was necessary and was mandatory for a petition under Order 21 Rule 11A CPC. 6. I may quote Order 21 Rule 11A CPC, which reads thus: “Application for arrest to state grounds.-Where an application is made for the arrest and detention in prison of the judgment-debtor, it shall state, or be a accompanied by an affidavit stating, the grounds on which arrest is applied for.” 7. Rule 11A ordains that a petition for the detention of the judgment-debtor shall state the grounds on which the arrest is sought. Filing of an affidavit is one of the modes of stating the grounds. A reading of Order 21 Rule 11A CPC does not show that filing of an affidavit under Order 21 Rule 11A CPC is mandatory for the arrest of a judgment-debtor. I, therefore, do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the judgment-debtor that the decree-holder violated the mandatory provision of Order 21 Rule 11A CPC and that the execution petition in E.P.No.1 of 2008 is liable to be dismissed. 8. The learned counsel for the judgment-debtor further contended that where the judgment-debtor has immovable properties even according to the decree- holder, the judgment-debtor shall proceed against the immovable properties and cannot proceed against the judgment-debtor. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon E.N. Satyanarayana v. Chowdamma[2]. In that case, arrest of the judgment-debtor was sought. There were properties belonging to the judgment-debtor and the properties were under attachment. The High Court considered that issuance of arrest warrant was unjustified where finding was not recorded that the attached property was not available for sale. In the present case, albeit the petition in E.P.No.17 of 2005 was filed for the attachment and sale of the properties, the properties do not appear to have been attached. It is not made out by the judgment-debtor that the properties of the judgment-debtor were available for attachment and sale. 9. That apart, the very purport of the arrest of the judgment-debtor is on the ground that the judgment- debtor has means and has been evading to honour the money decree despite his means. In the present case, it is the stand of the judgment-debtor himself that he has means. Admittedly, the judgment-debtor has not been paying the decretal amount. I, therefore, consider that the Execution Court was perfectly justified in considering that it is a fit case for ordering the detention of the judgment- debtor in civil prison. 10. This revision, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. However, it is curious to notice that the Execution Court did not fix the period of detention. In the event, the judgment-debtor is produced before the Court in execution of the warrant, the Execution Court is cautioned to be careful in executing the warrant by determining the period of detention. The Execution Court is indeed at liberty to consider the plea of installments of the judgment-debtor, if any. 11. This Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. _________________________ JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Date:31.10.2011. mrb [1] 2001 (4) ALT 743 [2] 2009 (4) ALD 666