O R D E R

The only issue is whether the petitioners should be subjected to detention in civil prison when other modes of execution are available for the Decree Holder.

2. According to the revision petitioners/ Judgment Debtors, the mortgaged property is available for being proceeded against and there is also an attachment. It is also stated that the market value of the scheduled property is sufficient to discharge the decree debt. The Manager of the respondent, who was examined as PW1 has stated that there is no impediment in proceeding against the scheduled property for realising the decree debt.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners relied on the decision in Anilkumar v. Divya [ 2023 (4) KLT 898 ], wherein, a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that, before resorting to execution by arrest and detention of the Judgment Debtor, the court must be fully satisfied that no other method of recovery of the decree amount is available. On the facts of this case, I do not find any reason to take a different view than the one taken in Anilkumar’s case (supra).

In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed.

The order, Annexure A7, in E.P. No.5 of 2021 in O.S. No.3