Judgment : The above revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned District Munsif, Thirupathur, North Arcot-Ambedkar District, dated 17. 1996 in E.A.No.152 of 1995 in E.P.No.185 of 1995 in O.S.No.1330 of 1992. Plaintiff- respondent - Bank herein has obtained a decree against the petitioner herein and another person for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,600 with subsequent interest at 13 1/2% per annum from 11. 1992 till the date of realisation, with costs. Since no amount subsequent to the decree was paid and the petitioner also was avoiding such payment, the decree holder filed an execution petition in E.P.No.185 of 1995. The decree holder has also prayed for arrest and detention of the petitioner herein in civil prison by invoking the provisions of O.21, Rules 37 and 38, C.P.C. Notice has been ordered in the above application and it is seem from the averments made in the affidavit filed after the ex-parte order of arrest was made that the petitioner was ready to file a counter affidavit on 30.4.1996 to which date it was posted, that due to dysentery, he could not move above and on 5. 1996, when he became alright, he met his advocate, who informed him that since no counter affidavit was filed on 30.4.1996, an ex parte order of arrest came to be made and then he filed the application in E.A.No.152 of 1995. In the said affidavit as also in the counter affidavit praying that the counter affidavit may be received and that the ex parte order of arrest may be revoked, it was also submitted that otherwise, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and damages and that for the conduct of the case, he has favourable records with him. 2. In the counter affidavit sought to be filed, it is found stated that it is for the decree holder - petitioner in the execution petition to prove the claims made in the affidavit, that the averments made therein as thought the petitioner was having properties and income are all inventions for the execution petition in question, that the petitioner is struggling hard in life, that he has no means to pay the decree amount, that the rate of interest claimed was not correct, that the amount claimed is also not correct and that, therefore, the application for arrest may be rejected. .3. .3. It may be noticed even at this stage that the petitioner has not disclosed in the court below in the affidavit or the counter affidavit as to the condition of his family or the manner in which he is managing his family or his business, except making very bald, general and vague allegations and assertions as notice in para 2 above. As noticed earlier, the absence of the petitioner on the date fixed for filing counter, resulted in the passing of an ex parte order of arrest. When the petitioner moved the court on coming to know of the same by filing an affidavit and an application as also a counter affidavit in the Execution Petition, the learned Judge has passed the order dated 17. 1996 adverting to the fact that a sum of Rs.9,311 is due, that the petitioner does not appear to evidence any positive interest in the proceedings, except interested in dragging on the same and therefore, a sum of Rs.2,500 at least must be directed to be remitted by him on or before 30.8.1986, failing which the application for reviewing the order of arrest shall stand dismissed. As against this conditional order, this revision petition has been filed. 4. Mr.V.P.Venkat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the decree holder Bank has not substantiated the claim that the petitioner is in possession of sufficient means or properties, but yet evading payment and unless such proof is made out, there is no scope for ordering arrest. It is stated further for the petitioner that there has been gross violation of the procedure under O.21, Rules 37, 38 and 40, C.P.C. and particularly Rule 40, relying upon which it has been strongly contended that no order of arrest could have been made unless the procedure under Rule 40 of O.21, C.P.C. has been complied with. 5. Reliance has been made on some of the decision, to which reference need be made at this stage. In Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 470: (1980) 1 S.C. W.R. 396 the Apex Court has laid down certain guidelines to be observed in ordering arrest or detention of a judgment debtor in civil prison in execution of a decree, keeping in view Art.21 of the Constitution of India. In Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 470: (1980) 1 S.C. W.R. 396 the Apex Court has laid down certain guidelines to be observed in ordering arrest or detention of a judgment debtor in civil prison in execution of a decree, keeping in view Art.21 of the Constitution of India. It was held therein that in a cases where it is obvious from the facts presented in a case, as in that case before the Apex Court that the judgment debtor is really in distress and had no means and it is not shown that the judgment debtor has committed wilful default to pay inspite of his sufficient means and absence of more terribly pressing claims on his means such as medical bills to treat cancer or other grave illness, the order of arrest and detention in civil prison should not be ordered. It is in that context, the Apex Court also observed that to be poor in this land is no crime and that to recover the dues by the procedure of putting in one prison is too flagrantly violative of Art.21 unless there is proof of the minimal fairness of his wilful failure to pay inspite of his sufficient means. .6. In K.AL.RM. Alagappan v. Rajaguru, A.I.R. 1985 Mad. 353: (1985)1 M.L.J. 331 a learned single Judge of this Court has held that simple default by the Judgment-debtor to pay the decretal amount is not enough for ordering his arrest. It was also observed therein that in the absence of any finding in the order of the Court below that the judgment-debtor is having funds or that he is purposely delaying to pay the decretal amount, the order of the Court below directing arrest and detention has to be interfered with. In Mani v. Chandranath, (1993)1 M.L.J. 597 yet another learned Judge of this Court adverted to the procedure to be adopted in ordering arrest. It was observed therein that normally notice has to be ordered and if the judgment-debtor does not make appearance and a request is made for the issue of warrant for arrest, the considerations set out under O.21, Rule 37(2), C.P.C. must be adverted to and that before ordering for detention in prison, the procedure under O.21, Rule 40 has to be observed. As a matter of fact, the learned Judge has also observed that O.21, Rule 37(2) does not provide for any particular mode of enquiry and that even by affidavit evidence the executing court could come to the conclusion that necessary proof is there for ordering arrest of the judgment-debtor. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel in the light of the above decisions and the principles laid down therein. In my view, there cannot be any hard and fast rule or principle of universal application in appreciating the question, whether in a particular and given case the judgment-debtor is wilfully avoiding and evading payment under the decree. Copy of the decree discloses while describing the petitioner herein as a business man, his address being as No.323, Big Bazaar Street, Thirupathur town. The counter affidavit as also the affidavit filed by the petitioner, copies of which are made available also disclose that the decree holder Bank has filed an affidavit in support of the execution petition and the relief of arrest was prayed for therein. The said affidavit is not made available before this Court. Even from the above facts disclosed on the materials produced, it is seen that the petitioner is a business man having a shop and carrying on business in a bazaar street, that inspite of all these he has not come out in affidavit as also in the counter affidavit filed with details as to what business he has been carrying on, what happened to his business prospects, how and in what manner he is maintaining his family, and except a blanket assertion that he is a man of no means and he is finding it hard to live and maintain his family nothing concrete has been averred in them. This only gives an indication that taking advantage of some broad and general observations in some of the case laws, with particular reference to the facts of those cases the petitioner is trying to play foul with the process of court and in my view, even trying to above the process of court to avoid his obligations under the degree. This only gives an indication that taking advantage of some broad and general observations in some of the case laws, with particular reference to the facts of those cases the petitioner is trying to play foul with the process of court and in my view, even trying to above the process of court to avoid his obligations under the degree. The fact that notice has been ordered and time was granted for filing counter is an admitted fact and if the petitioner was not present and there was no representation, the learned Judge of the execution court as well within his rights to order for the arrest, at least to ensure his presence and production in court. The order also disclose that this is the second that such order ex parte had to be passed and once earlier such order made has been revoked. Otherwise, there is no meaning in the executing court having such powers and despite going after and behind the judgment-debtor to ensure even his presence in court. As notice earlier, even in the decision in Mani’s case, (1993)1 M.L.J. 597 , it is observed that at the stage of ordering arrest even affidavit evidence is enough and that the Court is not precluded from ordering arrest. The procedure and formalities stipulated under O.21, Rule 40, Civil Procedure Code are obliged to be addressed to and followed only before an order of detention in Civil Prison is to be made and not even at this stage. The facts and circumstances of this case have given a definite impression that the petitioner is not only indifferent, but wilfully avoiding, taking advantage of some technicalities of law and evading to satisfy the decree by adopting delaying tactics also by absconding from court at the crucial time. The conditional order passed directing payment of Rs.2,500, which hardly comes to one-fourth of the amount decreed, appears to be very reasonable on the facts and circumstances of the case. In my view, the petitioner is not entitled to any indulgence whatsoever before this Court in this revision petition. The order of the court below does not suffer from any infirmity in law or on facts as alleged. Consequently, the revision petition fails and shall stand dismissed. In my view, the petitioner is not entitled to any indulgence whatsoever before this Court in this revision petition. The order of the court below does not suffer from any infirmity in law or on facts as alleged. Consequently, the revision petition fails and shall stand dismissed. The petitioner shall have two weeks’ time form today to comply with the order, if he is prepared to avail of the concession, failing which the court below shall be at liberty to proceed with the matter further in accordance with law. Consequently, C.M.P.No. 13393 of 1996 is dismissed.