IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH (17TH) DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRP No.3725 of 2006 Between: Parasa Simon Petitioner/JDr No.1 And: Andhra Bank, rep.by Manager (Deputy) Labbipet Branch, Vijayawada & another … Respondent/DHr HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRP No.3725 of 2006 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 26.06.2006 in EP No.189 of 2004 in OS No.3230 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, wherein, the arrest of the JDr was ordered under Order XXI Rule 37 of CPC, in execution of the decree. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein filed suit OS No.3230 of 2003 against the petitioner for recovery of certain amount and a decree was passed on 04.05.2004. A sum of Rs.36,779/- was due under the decree, besides costs. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid prior to filing of the E.P., i.e., on 27.08.2004 and subsequently, a sum of Rs.15,000/- was deposited in pursuance of the interim order of stay granted by this court on 04.08.2006 in CRP CMP No.5158 of 2006. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a notice under Order XXI Rule 37 CPC was not served on the petitioner and under the guise of deemed service of notice by way of publication in ‘Janatha’ paper, he was set ex-parte on 13.04.2006 and warrant of arrest was issued against him. As seen from the docket proceedings, copy of which is filed along with the petition, notices issued against the JDr were returned un-served and paper publication was made and JDr was set ex-parte. Without examining the DHr and recording any satisfaction that the JDr was evading to pay the decree debt in spite of having sufficient means, the executing Court has straight away ordered arrest of the JDr. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the JDr is working as Head Master and the question of his absconding did not arise at all. 5. Be that as it may, the order of arrest issued by the executing Court is unsustainable, as no enquiry was conducted regarding the means of the JDr before the said order was passed. In the circumstances, the warrant of arrest issued against the JDr is held liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner would seek permission for payment of the balance decretal amount by way of installments. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner/JDr is working as Head Master on a salary and substantial portion of the decretal amount was already paid, the petitioner/JDr is permitted to pay the balance decretal amount within a period of (3) three months from today and in the event of petitioner/JDr failing to pay the same within the said period, the DHr is at liberty to proceed in execution of the decree. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 7. The Decree-holder is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.15,000/- which was already deposited by the JDr in pursuance of the interim order of stay granted by this court, without furnishing any security. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 17.06.2010 bss