JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Having regard to the nature of order proposed to be passed in the case at hand, this court sees no necessity to issue notice to the respondent. 2. By way of present petition filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, prayer has been made to set aside order dated 26.9.2018 passed by learned Civil Judge, Manali in Ex. Petition No. 38-X/2017 titled Rajan Chopra vs. Om Prakash, whereby warrant of arrest against the petitioner-judgment debtor came to be issued in the execution petition filed by the respondent-Decree Holder, for different dates and lastly returnable for 15.7.2019. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that since the petitioner-judgment debtor despite repeated notices issued to him, failed to put in appearance in the execution proceedings initiated at the behest of the respondent, learned executing Court was left with no other option but to issue warrants of arrest against the petitioner. Warrant of arrest, as referred to above, was though also issued on 25.2.2019, but Zimni orders placed on record clearly suggest that till last date of hearing i.e. 3.6.2019, same could not be executed. It has been averred in the petition that since the petitioner was not available in Manali as he had gone to Lahul & Spiti, factum with regard to passing of order dated 26.9.2018 never came to the knowledge of the petitioner. 4. Having carefully perused the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin, (1980) 2 SCC 360 , this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. B.L. Soni, Advocate that in terms of proviso to S.51 CPC, executing court, before issuing warrant of arrest, ought to have recorded its satisfaction that though the petitioner has sufficient means to pay the decretal amount, but he is purposely avoiding the same. Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment (supra) has held as under: "8. Indeed, the Central Law Commission, in its Fifty Fourth Report, did cognize the Covenant, while dealing with s. 51 C.P.C.: The question to be considered is, whether this mode of execution should be retained on the statute book, particularly in view of the provision in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibiting imprisonment for a mere nonperformance of contract. The Law Commission, in its unanimous report, quoted the key passages from the Kerala ruling referred to above and endorsed its ratio. 'We agree with this view' said the Law Commission and adopting that meaning as the correct one did not recommend further change on this facet of the Section. It is important to notice that, interpretationally speaking, the Law Commission accepted the dynamics of the changed circumstances of the debtor : However, if he once had the means but now has not, or if he has money now on which there are other pressing claims, it is violative of the spirit of Article 11 to arrest and confine him in jail so as to coerce him into payment. This is reiterated by the Commission: Imprisonment is not to be ordered merely because, like Shylock, the creditor says: "I crave the law, the penalty and forfeit of my bond." The law does recognise the principle that "Mercy is reasonable in the time of affliction, as clouds of rain in the time of drought." 9. We concur with the Law Commission in its construction of s. 51 C.P.C. It follows that quondom affluence and current indigence without intervening dishonesty or bad faith in liquidating his liability can be consistent with Art. 11 of the Covenant, because then no detention is permissible under s. 51, C.P.C." 5. No doubt, order dated 26.9.2018, has been laid challenge approximately after one year of passing of the same, but as has been noticed herein above, till date, warrants of arrest issued against the petitioner on various dates, have not been executed. 6. Leaving everything aside, perusal of Zimni orders placed on record nowhere suggests that before issuing warrants of arrest, learned executing Court made endeavour, if any, to find out that petitioner has sufficient means to pay the amount but he is not depositing the same, rather the record made available suggests that since the petitioner failed to put in appearance pursuant to notices issued to him in the execution petition, learned executing Court straightway proceeded to issue warrants of arrest against him, which otherwise is/was not permissible, as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment (supra). 7. Be that as it may, Mr. 7. Be that as it may, Mr. B.L. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner states that his client would make himself available before learned executing Court on a date to be fixed by it, provided that he is not arrested by the Police pursuant to latest warrant of arrest issued in terms of order dated 3.6.2019. 8. Consequently, in view of above, present petition is allowed. Order dated 26.9.2018 passed by learned executing Court is set aside, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent. Petitioner is directed to remain present before learned executing Court on 16.9.2019, failing which order dated 26.9.2018 shall automatically revive and no more opportunity shall be afforded to the petitioner for the purpose. However, needless to say that in the event of petitioner presenting himself before learned executing Court on the date fixed above, learned executing Court shall afford him opportunity of hearing before proceeding to pass order, if any, in the matter. 9. The present petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith pending applications, if any. Interim directions, if any, stand vacated.