IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH (27TH) DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5109 of 2004 Between: K.Mohan … Petitioner And: State Bank of Hyderabad & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5109 of 2004 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.09.2004 in EP No.318 of 2003 in OS No.65 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, wherein, the petitioner-2nd JDr was directed to be arrested and detained in civil prison for realization of the decretal amount. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the first respondent in spite of service of notice. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein filed suit against the 2nd respondent-first JDr and petitioner-2nd JDr for recovery of certain amount due and the said suit was decreed on 07.10.2002 for a sum of Rs.56,257/- and interest. The first respondent herein filed EP No.318 of 2003 for recovery of Rs.78,592/- by seeking arrest of the petitioner- 2nd JDr. Admittedly, the petitioner is an employee, working as Clerk cum Cashier, in Indian Bank, Chittoor. Having been satisfied that the petitioner-2nd JDr has means to pay the decree debt, the execution Court ordered his arrest. The contention of the petitioner-2nd JDr is that he is only a guarantor and the decree-holder ought to have proceeded against the 2nd respondent herein-first JDr, is untenable for the simple reason that the liability of the petitioner-2nd JDr is co-extensive along with the 2nd respondent-first JDr. It is always open to the decree-holder to proceed against all or any of the JDrs and also to choose the mode of recovery permissible under law. 4. The other contention of the petitioner-2nd JDr is that he is having immoveable properties and the decree-holder has to exhaust the remedies against the properties, before seeking arrest of the petitioner, is equally untenable, as the decree-holder is certainly entitled to choose either of the modes for recovery of the decretal amount available under law. 5. Admittedly the petitioner-2nd JDr has gained more than six years of time since the filing of the civil revision petition and grant of interim stay on 07.10.2004. In the circumstances, it is held that there are absolutely no merits in the civil revision petition and the impugned order does not call for any interference. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 27.01.2011 bss