K.T. Sankaran, J.—The petitioners and the second respondent are the judgment debtors in E.P. No. 32 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Kasaragod. The first respondent secured an arbitral award in AP No. 357 of 2000. It was put in execution by the decree holder (first respondent) for realization of the amount by arrest and detention of the judgment debtors in civil prison.

2. It is submitted that the judgment debtors were originally set ex parte before the executing Court and an order for arrest was passed against them. That order was challenged by them in CRP No. 277 of 2004 before the High Court. An order of stay was passed on condition that the judgment debtors should deposit Rs.40,000 before the executing court. They deposited the amount. The Revision was later disposed of recalling the warrant and affording an opportunity to the petitioners to adduce evidence.

3. The judgment debtors contended that they have no means to pay the decree debt or a substantial portion thereof and, therefore, they cannot be detained in civil prison.

4. In the affidavit filed before the executing court, the decree holder stated that the first petitioner (first) judgment debt