( 1 ) THE first respondent raised an Industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Guntur against the petitioner in I. D. No. 86 of 1991. He claimed to be the employee of the petitioner. The Labour Court passed an award, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of rs. 72,000/- to the respondent. The 1st respondent filed E. P. No. 5 of 1997, and prayed for the arrest of the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE petitioner resisted the E. P. He pleaded that he filed I. P. No. 7 of 1997, in the court of Additional Subordinate Judge, guntur, and as along as the I. P. is pending, he cannot be arrested for non-compliance with the decree. The trial Court rejected his plea, and ultimately directed his arrest, through its order dated 5-11-1999 ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sub-section (3) of Section 55 c. P. C. casts a duty on the executing court to inform a judgment debtor, who is sought to be arrested, that he can file I. P. and that being the case, there was no justification on the part of the executing court directing the arrest of the petitioner, though he filed an I. P. He further submits that the executing court did notfollow the procedure prescribed under the relevant provisions of C. P. C. ( 4 ) SRI P. Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel for the first respondent submits that according to his information, I. P. No. 7of 1997 was dismissed, and in that view of the matter, the defence on that account is no longer available to the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is avoiding compliance with the decree, even though he possessed sufficient means. ( 5 ) THE award passed by the Labour Court, against the petitioner in I. D. No. 86 of 1991, became final. The petitioner is under obligation to pay a sum of Rs. 72,000/ -. The first respondent filed E. P. No. 5 of 1997 and sought for arrest of the petitioner. The petitioner categorically pleaded that he filed i. P. No. 7 of 1997. The executing court proceeded to direct the arrest of the petitioner, on the ground that no stay was obtained by the petitioner in I. P. No. 7 of 1997. Such an approach is contrary to the very scheme of execution of decrees under the Code of Civil procedure. The executing court proceeded to direct the arrest of the petitioner, on the ground that no stay was obtained by the petitioner in I. P. No. 7 of 1997. Such an approach is contrary to the very scheme of execution of decrees under the Code of Civil procedure. ( 6 ) DEALING with the various steps to be taken, in the event of the arrest of a judgment debtor becoming inevitable, Section 55 C. P. C. mandates that even where no I. P. , as such, was filed by a judgment debtor, the executing court shall inform him that such a facility can be availed. When such a protection is accorded to a judgment debtor, there was no justification on the part of the executing court, to direct the arrest of the petitioner, on the ground that no order of stay was obtained in the I. P. Having regard to the provisions of the c. P. C. and Provincial Insolvency Act, mere pendency of I. P. , to which the judgment debtor is party, should be sufficientfor stalling his arrest, in the execution of any decree against him. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the first respondent submits that I. P. has since been dismissed. If that be so, the matter needs to be considered afresh. Therefore, the order under revision is set aside. It is left open to the respondent, to take steps afresh, against the petitioner. In such an event, the trial court shall pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions of c. P. C. In case, it becomes inevitable for the petitioner for payment of the decretal amount, he shall be entitled to pay the same in instalments, at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month.