THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4052 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Order dated 09.08.2010 in E.P.No.1 of 2009 in O.S. No.275 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gooty, whereunder and whereby Execution Petition filed by the respondent no.1/decree holder was allowed ordering issue of arrest warrant against the petitioners/judgment debtors 3 and 4 under Order XXI Rule 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’). 2. The respondent no.1/decree holder filed Original Suit No.275 of 2006 before the court below for recovery of money and obtained decree on 12.02.2008, and as the defendants failed to pay the decreetal amount, filed the Execution Petition against the petitioners/judgment debtors 3 and 4, for realization of the same, and to order their arrest and detention in civil prison if they fail to pay the said amount. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the execution proceedings are not maintainable without proceeding against the principal borrowers/judgment debtors 1 and 2, and that the petitioners have no sufficient means to discharge the debt, and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order of arrest. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 contended that the decree is joint and several and the decree holder can proceed against any of the defendants to realize the decreetal amount; that, the petitioners are having Ac.9.97 cents and Ac.12.20 cents of land and getting income from it, but, they are intentionally evading to pay the decreetal amount, and considering these aspects, the trial court rightly ordered their arrest, and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 6. In considering an application for arrest of a judgment debtor under Order XXI Rule 38 CPC, two requirements are to be established by the decree holder viz. the judgment has sufficient means to pay the decreetal amount and that he is wantonly or willfully avoiding to pay the same. If these two ingredients are satisfied, then the judgment debtor is liable to be sent to civil prison. 7. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the decree holder has to first proceed against the principal debtor, cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the decree passed is joint and several and it is the option of the decree holder to proceed against any of the judgment debtors for realization of the decreetal amount. Therefore, the contention that the execution proceedings are not maintainable on that ground, is wholly devoid of merit and is untenable. 8. Coming to the means of the petitioner no.1/judgment debtor no.3, as seen from the evidence of P.W.2, who is the Village Revenue Officer, Nagasamudram village, as per Exs.X1 and X2-certified copies of 1-B Register and adangal, an extent of Ac.9.97 cents of land in survey nos. 899, 880 and 883 is standing in the name of the first petitioner/judgment debtor no.3. R.W.1, who is Judgment debtor no.3, also admitted that the lands shown in Exs.X1 and X2 stand in his name. 9. Coming to means of petitioner no.2/judgment debtor no.4, as seen from Exs.X3 and X4-attested copy of 1-B Register and adangal respectively, pertaining to survey nos. 845 and 906-B, he is having totally Ac.12.20 cents of land in the said survey numbers. R.W.2, who is judgment no.4, also admitted that the lands shown in Exs.X3 and X4 stand in his name. Therefore, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the petitioners/judgment debtors 3 and 4 are having sufficient means to discharge the decreetal amount. In view of the fact that they are having immovable properties and they have not discharged the decreetal amount, the only inference that can be drawn from the facts and circumstances, is that they are willfully evading to pay the amount. Therefore, the executing court rightly ordered for arrest of the petitioners and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 10. But, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, an opportunity can be given to the petitioners to deposit the decreetal amount. Therefore, the impugned order is kept under abeyance till 22.04.2011 to enable the petitioners to deposit the decreetal amount. On such deposit of decreetal amount, the respondent no.1/decree holder is entitled to withdraw to the same. If the petitioners fail to deposit the decreetal amount on or before 22.04.2011, the impugned order shall be given effect to. 11. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 25.1.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4052 OF 2010 25.1.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4052 OF 2010 25.1.2011 Between: G.Chendramouli & another …Petitioners And Sree Shakthi Swarup Chits Pvt. Ltd. & others …Respondents