(Petition under Section 115 of CPC., to revise the order dated 28-12-89 And Made E.P.No.43/89 In O.S.No.71 of 1986 on the file of the court of the Principal Subordinate Judge at Srikakulam.)

Respondent filed E.P. No.43 of 1989 in O.S.No.71 of 1986 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam, seeking arrest of the revision petitioners for non compliance with the order dated 04-10-1988 in C.M.P.No.12983 of 1988 and C.M.P.15196 of 1988 in A.S.No.2248 of 1988 on the file of this Court, whereunder they were directed to pay certain amounts to the respondent. Revision petitioners filed a counter in E.P.No.43 of 1989 contending that the order dated 04-1-1988 in C.M.P.No.12983 of 1988 and C.M.P.15196 of 1988 is not an executable order.

After recording the evidence of the respondent and the ninth revision petitioner and after taking into consideration the documents produced by them, the Executing Court overruled the objections of the revision petitioners and directed their arrest. Hence, this revision contending that since the order dated 04-10-1988 in C.M.P.No.12983 of 1988 and C.M.P.15196 of 1988 is not a decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) of Code of Civil Procedure, it cannot be executed and that their remedy is to file a petition for contempt. When a conditional order passed by this Court is not complied with, the beneficiary thereunder can seek its enforcement by filing an E.P. in view of sec.36 C.P.C. which lays down that the provisions in the Code relating to execution of decrees would apply to execution of orders including payment under an order. So, irrespective of the fact that the respondent has the remedy of filing a petition for contempt also, she is entitled to seek execution of the decree under Order 21 C.P.C., by virtue of Section 36 C.P.C. Therefore, I find no merits in this revision petition and hence the civil revision petition is dismissed with costs.