1. Inveighing the order dated 3 16.2.2012 passed by the X Asst. City Civil Court, Chennai, in E.P.No.3964 of 2010 in O.S.No.654 of 2004, this civil revision is filed.

2. Heard both sides.

3. In a few broad strokes, the germane facts could be encapsulated thus:

The respondent herein filed the E.P. for arrest, by way of enforcing the recovery of the decreetal dues. After hearing both sides, the Executing Court ordered arrest.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Executing Court, this revision is focussed by the judgement debtor on various grounds.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant/judgement debtor, by placing reliance on the grounds of revision would put forth and set forth his arguements, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus:

(i) The lower Court committed gross error in understanding the law as though even a sick man can be put in civil prison, in the process of recovering the dues, once it is found to the Court's satisfaction that he had means to discharge the debt.

(ii) Over and above that the lower Court also failed to analyse the facts to arrive at the conclusion that the revision petitioner herein/jud