L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS is revision filed by the decree holder in OS No. 98 of 1981 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur against the order dated 13-10-1999 made in EA No. 7 of 1999. ( 2 ) THE petitioner filed OS No. 98 of 1981 for recovery of Rs. 7,954. 00 from the respondent herein and others. The suit was decreed on 24-2-1982 and the decree became final. It appears that the petitioner filed EP No. 37 of 1986. Since, the petitioner could not recover any amount from the judgment-debtor, the EP itself came to be closed. Subsequently, the petitioner filed EP No. 35 of 1993 under Order 21, Rule 37 of CPC for arrest of the respondent herein and another who happened to be the judgment debtor No. 4. The Executing Court through its order dated 4-1-1997 dismissed the EP against the respondent herein on the ground that he is not residing within the jurisdiction of that Court. So far as the other judgment-debtor is concerned, the EP was allowed. It appears that since the other judgment-debtor paid Rs. 4,089. 00 further steps against him were dropped. ( 3 ) IN the meanwhile, after dismissal of the EP, the Government of A. P. appears to have made some deposits into the petitioner bank, in respect of the lands belonging to the respondent in pursuance of a settlement in the Lok Adalat. The petitioner filed EA No. 7 of 1999 in EP No. 35 of 1993 for attachment of the amount of Rs. 12,267/- lying to the credit of the respondent covered by the bond issued by the Government. The respondent resisted the EA on two grounds. The first plea was that in as much as the EP No. 35 of 1993 was dismissed against him on 4-1-1999, the filing of application in EA No. 7 of 1999 was not tenable. The second objection was that the amount covered under the bond was exempt from attachment as per the scheme framed by the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 234, Irrigation and CAD (Project Wing-TGPH) Department, dated 15-10-1993. The Executing Court accepted both the pleas and dismissed the EA. Hence, this revision petition. The second objection was that the amount covered under the bond was exempt from attachment as per the scheme framed by the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 234, Irrigation and CAD (Project Wing-TGPH) Department, dated 15-10-1993. The Executing Court accepted both the pleas and dismissed the EA. Hence, this revision petition. ( 4 ) SRI Mahipathi Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the view taken by the Court below that when the EP stood dismissed the EA could not have been maintained is not correct. According to him, the dismissal of the EP could only be treated as a refusal to order arrest of the respondent and nothing more. As far as the second contention, namely, non-attach ability of the amount is concerned, he submits that G. O. Ms. No. 231, dated 15-10-1993 cannot be treated as law within the meaning of Section 60 (o) of Civil Procedure Code. ( 5 ) SRI K. Somakonda Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that with the dismissal of EP nothing remained on record and the filing of EA No. 7 of 1999 in that EP was incompatible. So far as the G. O. is concerned, he submits that the relevant provision under CPC does not stipulate that the law referred to therein should be either the one enacted by the Parliament or Legislature of a State. ( 6 ) SO far as the first contention is concerned, it has to be seen that EP No. 35 of 1993 was filed under Order 21, Rule 37 of CPC. The only relief claimed therein is for arrest of the judgment- debtor. No other relief was contemplated in it. That relief was rejected by the Executing Court through its order dated 4-1-1999 against the respondent for the reasons stated therein. One can understand if a larger relief or an alternative relief was sought in the EP and only one of the several reliefs was rejected. For instance, if the EP was for sale of some property, further and ancillary reliefs such as attachment of the property can be sought. If one such ancillary relief is reused by the Executing Court, that by itself would not put an end to the EP. The EP still survives and the decree holder can take such steps as are open to him. If one such ancillary relief is reused by the Executing Court, that by itself would not put an end to the EP. The EP still survives and the decree holder can take such steps as are open to him. However, if the relief in the EP is for arrest of judgment-debtor and if the same is rejected, nothing survives in the EP. When the Executing Court in clear terms held that the EP is dismissed against the respondent herein, it is too difficult to imagine that the EP would still continue on the file of the Court, vis-a-vis, the respondent herein. Therefore, the finding of the Executing Court in this regard is correct and it does not call for any interference. ( 7 ) IN view of my finding on the first aspect, it is not necessary to consider the second aspect, namely, whether G. O. Ms. No. 234, dated 15-10-1993 can be treated as law within the meaning of Section 60 (o) of CPC for the purpose of seeking attachment of the amounts covered by the bond issued under the scheme referred to above. This question, however, is left open to be decided in appropriate case. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed without costs.