Judgment : Heard Shri Ryan Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners. None for the Respondents though served. 2. The above Petition challenges the Orders passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Bicholim, dated 23.10.2008, whereby the Branch in charge of the Petitioner no. 1 has been ordered to be detained in civil imprisonment for not complying with the Decree dated 31.12.2003, passed against the Petitioners. By one Order, the learned Judge rejected the application under exhibit 11 whereby the Petitioners have pointed out that in compliance with the Decree, the Petitioners were delivering the scooter in a good condition. The next application has been filed at the instance of the Respondent, praying, inter alia, for detention of the Petitioners in civil imprisonment for not complying with the Decree. 3. Shri Ryan Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, has assailed the impugned Order as, according to him, after the Decree came to be passed, the Petitioners had voluntarily brought the scooter in a good condition to be delivered to the Respondent. Learned Counsel further pointed out that as the Respondent has failed to take delivery of the scooter, an application came to be filed by the Petitioner at exhibit 11 calling upon the Respondent to collect the said scooter as, according to them, it was in good condition. Learned Counsel further pointed out that after an inquiry was conducted by the learned Judge by the first impugned Order dated 23.10.2008 the said application filed by the Petitioners came to be rejected. Learned Counsel further pointed out that directing to the arrest the Branch in charge of the Petitioners for not complying with the Decree does not arise as, according to him, the Petitioners had duly complied with the said Decree. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the learned Judge has not at all applied its mind whilst passing the impugned Order directing the arrest of the Petitioners and that it is without any jurisdiction. Learned Counsel further pointed out that evidence was led by the Petitioners to substantiate their contention that the scooter was in good condition. 4. The Respondent though served, failed to remain present. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel. I have also gone through the records. Learned Counsel further pointed out that evidence was led by the Petitioners to substantiate their contention that the scooter was in good condition. 4. The Respondent though served, failed to remain present. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel. I have also gone through the records. On perusal of the Decree passed against the Petitioners, there is specific direction therein to the Petitioner to deliver the scooter in a good condition. Though the word “good condition” has not been elaborated, nevertheless, it has to be assumed that such scooter was in a working and road worthy condition. In the present case, the learned Judge upon inquiry has come to the conclusion that the scooter which was sought to be delivered by the Petitioners was not in a good condition. As such, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot re-appreciate the said evidence unless perversity has been disclosed. 6. As stated above, the directions in the Decree are very specific to the effect that the scooter has to be in a good condition. Considering that the learned Judge found that the scooter was not in a good condition, I find that the question of interfering in the findings of fact arrived at by the learned Judge at this stage would not be justified. Though the Petitioners examined a representative, nevertheless such representative admittedly was not present when the possession of the scooter was taken by the Petitioners. Apart from that, the learned Judge has taken note of the fact that though it was alleged by the said representative that the scooter was serviced from time to time, nevertheless, no records on that count were produced. On perusal of the evidence of DHW1, the said witness has also stated, inter alia, that in case the scooter was serviced from time to time, the above Petitioners would maintain the records. The findings of fact arrived at by the learned Judge are as such based on the material on record and, consequently, no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. The next contention of Shri Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the learned Judge was not justified to issue a warrant of arrest for the breach in complying with such Decree. 7. The next contention of Shri Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the learned Judge was not justified to issue a warrant of arrest for the breach in complying with such Decree. No doubt, Section 55 of the Civil Procedure Code gives powers to the learned Judge on that count but, however, in the present case, the Decree is for recovery of moveable property. Order 21 Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Code, provides thus: “31. Decree for specific movable property.-(1) Where the decree is for any specific movable, or for any share in a specific movable, it may be executed by the seizure, if practicable, of the movable or share, and by the delivery thereof to the party to whom it has been adjudged, or to such person as he appoints to receive delivery on his behalf, or by the detention in the civil prison of the judgment-debtor, or by the attachment of his property, or by both. (2) Where any attachment under sub-rule (1) has remained in force for [three months], if the judgment-debtor has not obeyed the decree and the decree-holder has applied to have the attached property sold, such property holder, in cases where any amount has been fixed by the decree to be paid as an alternative to delivery of movable property, such amount, and, in other cases, such compensation as it thinks fit, and shall pay the balance (if any) to the judgment-debtor on his application. (3) Where the judgment-debtor has obeyed the decree and paid all costs of executing the same which he is bound to pay, or where, at the end of [three months] from the date of the attachment, no application to have the property sold has been made, or, if made, has been refused, the attachment shall cease.” On plain reading of the said provisions, the steps to be taken by the learned Judge in recovering a moveable property have been clearly enumerated. The provision further contemplates that at the first instance, such moveable property is to be handed over to the Decree holder in terms of the decree and, in case of default, the property of the Judgment-debtor would have to be attached and ultimately, if the Decree is not complied with, the learned Judge would have to take further steps in terms of provisions of Order 21 Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Code. 8. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as such, the learned Judge was not justified to pass the impugned Order dated 23.10.2008 directing the Petitioner to civil imprisonment. The Decree-holder is otherwise entitled for such relief only after complying with the provisions of Order 21 Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Code. 9. In view of the above, I pass the following: ORDER (I) The impugned Order dated 23.10.2008 directing the civil imprisonment of the Petitioners' representative is quashed and set aside. The learned Judge is directed to proceed with the execution application, in the light of the observations made herein above in accordance with law. (II) Rule is made absolute in above terms.