ORDER: The revision petitioner is the judgment-debtor, who suffered a money decree in O.S.No.310 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Badvel. The respondent herein/decree-holder filed E.P.No.97 of 2006 for execution of the decree by arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor in prison and the same was ordered on 10.3.2008 issuing arrest warrant against the judgment-debtor. Immediately thereafter, the Revision petitioner/judgment-debtor filed E.A.No.85 of 2008 under Order 21 Rule 106 of C.P.C. to set aside the order of arrest dated 10.3.2008 and to recall the arrest warrant on the ground that I.P.No.8 of 2008 filed by him in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, is pending. The said petition was opposed by the decree-holder and the Court below by order dated 31.3.2008 dismissed E.A.No.85 of 2008 holding that no case was made out to recall the warrant of arrest. The said order dated 31.3.2008 is under challenge in this Revision Petition. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. 3. In the case on hand, the suit was decreed on 25.1.2005 and the arrest warrant was issued in E.P.No.97 of 2006 on 10.3.2008. Though it is pleaded by the Revision Petition that the order dated 10.3.2008 was passed ex parte, the order under Revision shows that the said order was passed on contest by the judgment- debtor. Hence, Rule106 of Order 21 of C.P.C. which empowers the Executing Court to set aside the order on being satisfied that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance of the judgment-debtor when the application was called for hearing, has no application and as such E.A.No.85 of 2008 filed under Order 21 Rule 106 of C.P.C. was not maintainable at all. 4. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the petitioner had already filed an Insolvency Petition and the same is pending, the Court below ought to have recalled the arrest warrant in view of the bar under Section 52 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that since the court below failed to follow the mandatory requirement under sub-sections (3) & (4) of Section 55 of C.P.C. the order dated 10.3.2008 as well as the impugned order dated 31.3.2008 are illegal and unsustainable. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that since the court below failed to follow the mandatory requirement under sub-sections (3) & (4) of Section 55 of C.P.C. the order dated 10.3.2008 as well as the impugned order dated 31.3.2008 are illegal and unsustainable. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in POTHUGANTI VENKATESHWARULU AND ANOTHER v. YANGALA MALLAIAH. 6. As per Section 55 (3) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, where a judgment- debtor is arrested in execution of a decree for the payment of money and brought before the Court, the Court shall inform him that he may apply to be declared as insolvent and that he may be discharged if he has not committed any act of bad faith regarding the subject of the application and if he complies with the provisions of the law of the insolvency for the time being in force. Sub- section (4) of Section 55 further provides that if the judgment-debtor expresses his intention to apply to be declared an insolvent and furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Court that he will within one month so apply and that he will appear when called upon in any proceeding upon the decree in execution of which he was arrested, the Court may release him from arrest and if he fails so to apply to appear, the Court may either direct the security to be realized or commit him to the civil prison in execution of the decree. 7. Thus, it is clear that the duty of the court to inform the judgment- debtor that he may apply to be declared as insolvent arises only after the judgment-debtor is arrested in execution of a decree for payment of money and brought before the Court. Since the arrest of the judgment-debtor did not take place ass on 10.3.2008 on which dated the order was passed in E.P.No.97 of 2006, sub-sections (3) & (4) of Section 55 of C.P.C. were not attracted. Hence, on that ground the order under Revision cannot be held to be erroneous. 8. So far as the proceedings under the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 are concerned, Section 52 upon which the petitioner relied upon runs as under : "52. Hence, on that ground the order under Revision cannot be held to be erroneous. 8. So far as the proceedings under the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 are concerned, Section 52 upon which the petitioner relied upon runs as under : "52. Duties of Court executing decree as to property taken in execution:-- Where execution of a decree has issued against any property of a debtor which is saleable in execution and before the sale thereof notice is given to the Court executing the decree that an insolvency petition by or against the Court, to be delivered to the receiver, but the costs of the suit in which the decree was made and of the execution shall be a first charge on the property so delivered, and the receiver may sell the property or an adequate part thereof for the purpose of satisfying the charge." 9. A plain reading of the above provision shows that it is applicable where execution of a decree is issued against any property of a debtor which is saleable in execution. 10. Since the execution petition in the case on hand is for arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor, Section 52 of the Insolvency Petition is not attracted and consequently pendency of I.P.No.8 of 2008 filed under Sections 10 & 13 of the Provincial Insolvency Act to adjudicate the judgment-debtor as insolvent does not affect the proceedings in E.P.No.97 of 2006. 11. Hence, the Court below was justified in rejecting the plea of the petitioner for recalling the arrest warrant. 12. Viewed from an angle, the order under Revision does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction warranting interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of C.P.C. 13.Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.