JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 04.08.2011 whereby the learned Executing Court has rejected the application of the judgment-debtor under Section 55 of the Code of Civil Procedure , which permits an arrested person in execution under Order 21, Rule 38 CPC to move to Court to be discharged upon he either applying to be declared an insolvent or after furnishing the solvent security expressed his intention to apply to the competent court for being declared as insolvent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner (judgment-debtor) relying upon a decision rendered by Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Vaddireddy Venkata Subba Reddy v. Narapureddy Kalyanamma reported in 2008 (6) ALD 585 submitted that provisions are mandatory in nature and, therefore, the learned court below could not have straightway rejected the application and same is required to be interfered in the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of provisions of Section 55 and judgment cited at bar and for the reasons given in the impugned order, this Court is satisfied that no interference is called for in the impugned order dated 04.08.2011. Learned court below has clearly recorded in the previous order dated 29.10.2010 by which the court already came to the conclusion that the judgment-debtor had sufficient means to satisfy the decree, and therefore, he is not entitled to invoke said Section 55 of the CPC. Section 55 (3) clearly stipulates that 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 an insolvent, and that he (may be discharged) if he has not committed any act of bad faith regarding the subject of the application. 5. 5. The Sub-section (4) further provides that where a judgment-debtor express 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 application or upon the decree in execution of which he was arrested, Court may release him from arrest and if he fails to apply and to appear, the Court may either direct the security to be realised or commit him to the civil prison in execution of the decree. 6. This Court is satisfied that the learned court below was justified in rejecting the said application of the judgment-debtor on the ground that since in the previous order dated 29.10.2010 which has not been challenged before this Court, the learned Executing Court has already come to the conclusion that judgment-debtor had sufficient means to satisfy the decree in question, therefore, this provision would not apply to him and there is no question of permitting him to apply for insolvency, and same cannot be faulted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, no interference is called for at this stage and the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force. 7. In view of above, the present writ petition having no force deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. No cost. A copy of this order be sent to the opposite party and learned trial court forthwith.Writ petition dismissed. *******