Judgment : This civil revision is filed against docket order dated 03.10.2012 in E.P. No.56 of 2012 in O.S.No.218 of 2006 (E.P) on the file of the Court of II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The petitioner herein is the Judgment Debtor (J.Dr) and the respondent herein is the Decree Holder (D.Hr) in the E.P. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as they are arrayed in the E.P. The E.P. was filed by the D.Hr under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to arrest and detain the J.Dr in civil prison for non-payment of amount of Rs.5,75,274/-. During the course of the proceedings in the E.P., the Court below passed the impugned order, which reads as follows. Memo submitted by counsel for Judgment Debtor. Memo is recorded. As per Order XXI Rule 40 CPC for conducting means enquiry the presence of Judgment Debtor is required. In spite of previous warrant and notice the Judgment Debtor did not appear in person before this Court. Hence issue warrant of arrest of Judgment Debtor under Order XXI Rule 37(2) CPC for conducting means enquiry. Call on 10.10.2012. It is the contention of learned counsel for the J.Dr that the D.Hr has to pay subsistence allowance under Order XXI Rule 39 CPC as declared by the Presiding Officer of the Court to be sufficient. In fact such amount was not paid. Further it was not proper to issue warrant without notice to the J.Dr. Learned counsel for the D.Hr submits that the suit was filed in 2006. Consequently the suit was decreed but the J.Dr has been involved in prolonging the matter by reason of which the D.Hr has been suffering great hardship. In fact in N.RatanBabu v D.Atchutya Reddy (CRP No.4752 of 2011, dated 28.11.2011 (High Court of A.P.) this Court in this case observed that when the arrest warrant was not being executed the Senior Civil Judge (concerned) should address the Commissioner of Police for the execution of it and that the E.P. should not be kept pending for unduly long period on that ground, while extending the time to do so by three months’ from the date of order dated 28.11.2012 to complete the formalities. He also has contended that by virtue of Order XXI Rule 37 where appearance is not made by a J.Dr in obedience to a direction given by a Court, such Court subject to its satisfaction can issue a warrant for the arrest of the J.Dr. According to him the Court below passed the order properly and there are no reasons to interfere with the same. As seen from the record and also considering the contentions raised, it is very clear that the matter has been coming up since long time but he failed to attend before the Court to face the means enquiry properly and on the same ground earlier also the arrest warrant was issued for the presence of the J.Dr. As he failed to participate in the proceedings, the Court below was forced to issue the arrest warrant. Further the record also provides that he appeared or his counsel has been appearing for him in the case. Therefore, it cannot be said that in the E.P. proceedings, there was no notice to the J.Dr. Further Order XXI Rule 37 enjoins “Discretionary power to permit judgment-debtor to show cause against detention in prison.- (1) Notwithstanding anything in these rules, where an application is for the execution of a decree for the payment of money by the arrest and detention in the civil prison of a judgment-debtor who is liable to be arrested in pursuance of the application, the Court shall instead of issuing a warrant for his arrest, issue a notice calling upon him to appear before the Court on a day to be specified in the notice and show cause why he should not be committed to the civil prison: Provided that such notice shall not be necessary if the Court is satisfied, by affidavit, or otherwise, that, with the object or effect of delaying the execution of the decree, the judgment-debtor is likely to abscond or leave the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. (2) Where appearance is not made in obedience to the notice, the Court shall, if the decree-holder so requires, issue a warrant for the arrest of the judgment-debtor”. Sub-rule (2) of Order XXI CPC is categorical about the issuance of arrest warrant against the J.Dr is under similar circumstances. (2) Where appearance is not made in obedience to the notice, the Court shall, if the decree-holder so requires, issue a warrant for the arrest of the judgment-debtor”. Sub-rule (2) of Order XXI CPC is categorical about the issuance of arrest warrant against the J.Dr is under similar circumstances. In other words, arrest warrant can be issued when in spite of sending the notice he fails to make his appearance or deliberately involves in avoiding to receive the notice and attending the Court for the purpose of protracting the matter or not deciding the question of means. In such a case the question of giving him notice would not arise at all. Section 51 CPC deals with the powers of Court to enforce execution. Order XXI Rule 40 CPC deals with the corresponding proceedings on the appearance of J.Dr in obedience to notice or after arrest. Rule 40 in fact enjoins “Proceedings on appearance of judgment-debtor in obedience to notice or after arrest— (1) When a judgment-debtor appears before the Court in obedience to a notice issued under rule 37, or is brought before the Court after being arrested in execution of a decree for the payment of money, the Court shall proceed to hear the decree-holder and take all such evidence as may be produced by him in support of his application for execution and shall then give the judgment-debtor an opportunity of showing cause why he should not be committed to the civil prison. (2) Pending the conclusion of the inquiry under sub-rule (1) the Court may, in its discretion, order the judgment-debtor to be detained in the custody of an officer of the Court or release him on his furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Court for his appearance when required. (2) Pending the conclusion of the inquiry under sub-rule (1) the Court may, in its discretion, order the judgment-debtor to be detained in the custody of an officer of the Court or release him on his furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Court for his appearance when required. (3) Upon the conclusion of the inquiry under sub-rule (1) the Court may, subject to the provisions of section 51 and to the other provisions of the Code, make an order for the detention of the judgment-debtor in the civil prison and shall in that event cause him to be arrested if he is not already under arrest: Provided that in order to give the judgment-debtor an opportunity of satisfying the decree, the Court may, before making the order of detention, leave the judgment-debtor in the custody of an officer of the Court for a specified period not exceeding fifteen days or release him on his furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Court for his appearance at the expiration of the specified period if the decree be not sooner satisfied. (4) A judgment-debtor released under this rule may be re-arrested. (5) When the Court does not make an order of detention under sub-rule (3), it shall disallow the application and, if the judgment-debtor is under arrest, direct his release”. Sub-rule (2) gives discretion to the Court to detain the J.Dr in the custody of an officer of the Court or release him on his furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Court for his appearance when required pending conclusion of the inquiry under sub-rule (1). On the other hand sub-rule (3) provides clearly that upon the conclusion of the inquiry under sub-rule (1) the Court may subject to the provisions of Section 51 and to the other provisions of this Code, make an order for the detention of J.Dr in the civil prison and shall in that event cause him to be arrested if he is not already under arrest, subject to the other provisions of the Order. The sub-rules (2) and (3) are distinct because under the first one the J.Dr can be detained in the custody of the officer of the Court or released by the Court on his furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Court for his appearance when he is required for an enquiry under the sub-rule (1), whereas the sub-rule (3) provides for taking necessary steps after the conclusion of the enquiry. Here Rule 40(2) and Rule 37 are to be read in conjunction. However the detention should be subject to the question of providing necessary subsistence allowance. In the circumstances stated it cannot be said that the order passed by the Court below is wrong. It is for the Court below to take necessary steps under the sub-rule (2) when once the J.Dr is arrested in view of the arrest warrant issued. For the reasons discussed, there are no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Court. The civil revision petition is therefore dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.