HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Applicant Claimant Respondents Civit Revision No. 147 of 2008 Virendra Kumar, aged SOyears, S/o Shri Puran, By Caste-Ganda-Adivasi, By Profession-Unemployed Person, R/o Village-Bhairopur, P.S. Tahsil Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund (CG) Versus 1. Bharat, age 37 years, S/o Bholaram By CasteGanda, 2. Shatrughan, aged 34 years, S/o Bholaram, By Caste Ganda, 3. Uttra Kumar, age 31 years, S/o Bholaram, By Caste Ganda 4. Chhabi Lal, age 40 years, S/o Saheb Lal, ByCaste Ganda, All the above are R/o ^llage-Jamdi.by Profession-P.S. Tahsil-Basna, Distt. Mahasamund (CG) 5. State of Chhattisgarh, Through theColtector, Distt. Mahasamund(CG) Memoofcivil revision under Seetion 115 of CPC Present: Shri J.A. Lohani.counsel for the applicant/decree hotder. ORALORDER (Passedon 22.10.2008) This civil revision ts beingdisposed of atthe staige ofadmission. (2) The appljcant is aggrieved by the order dated 23/07/2008 passed by the 1 Additional District Judge, Mahasamund in Execution caseNo.07-B/2003, whereby the application under Order 21 Rute 11 (A) of CPC filed by Uie decree hotder was rejected on the ground that jt was not supported by an affidavit. ^' (3) Brief facts are that a decree for Rs.1,24,628/- was passed in civil suit No.07-B?2003 in favour of the applicant/decree holder and against the non-applicants No.1 to 4 by the 1st Additional District Judge, Mahasamund. During execution, the decreetal amount could not be recovered from the judgment debtor. An application under Order 21 Rule 11 (A) of CPC was filed by the decree holder for issuance of warrant of arrest against the judgment debtor. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court, not on merit, but pn the sole ground that the application was not supported by an affidavit. The execution proceedings were alsodismissed. (4) Rule11 (A) ofOrder 21 reads asfottows:- "11A. Application for arrest to state grounds._ Where an application is made for thearrest and detention in prison of the judgment-debtor, it shalt state, or be accompanied by an affidavitstating, the grounds on which arrest is applied for. (5) Use of the word "or" in Order 21 Rute 11 (A) of CPC shows that it is not mandatory that an application must be supported by an afRdavit. However, if theexecuting Court felt that the contente of the apptication should be sworn on afRdavit, "rt should have afforded an opportunity to thedecree holder to file an affidavit in support thereof. The dismissal ofthe said application as also the execution case on the ground that the application was not supported by an affidavit is unwarranted by law. (6) In this view of the matter, the civil revision is allowed. The trial Court shall, after giving an opportunity to the decree holder to file an afRdavit in support of the apptication under Order 21 Rule 11 (A) of CPC, decide the same in accordance with law. r Priya Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge