CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) REVISION Petitioner is the Judgment debtor in the court below. He is aggrieved by the order dated 30th Nov , 1987 passed in Ex Case No. 79 of 1987 on the file of the Principal Munsiff at udupi, D K. The order directs arrest and detention in Civil Prison for three months in accordance with the provisions contained in Secs. 51 and 58 of the C. P. C. and also directs the Decree holder to deposit the subsistence allowance of Rs. 200/- tentatively ( 2 ) THAT the petitioner has suffered a decree is not in dispute. His defence was that he has no means to pay the decretal amount and therefore the decree cannot be executed by his arrest and detention in civil prison. ( 3 ) IT appears that an enquiry was conducted by the Court below. The decree holder has examined two witnesses. The two witnesses have failed to establish by any cogent evidence that the petitioner had means to pay the decretal amount with accrued interest as on the date of the order. Both have spoken to certain activities of the Judgment Debtor. ( 4 ) UNFORTUNATELY the executing court has not applied its mind to the law declared by the Supreme Court in regard to sections 51 and 58 of the C P. C. read with Order 21 Rule 38. He has independently gone into the provisions contained in the C. P C. without examining what the Supreme Court and what the High courts have said in regard to the said decision rendered by the Supreme Court. He has gone to the extent of holding that the burden of proof is on the Judgment debtor to demonstrate that he has no means and not on the decree holder. On the other hand, in Jolly George Varghese v Bank of Cochin (A I. R. 1980 sc 470) the Supreme Court has clearly laid down that as long as there is no dishonesty and mala fides on the part of the judgment Debtor to discharge his obligation, committing him to civil prison would amount to violation of Article 11 of the international Covenant on Civil and Political rights and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is the Decree holder who has to demonstrate that the judgment Debtor has wilfully with the mala fide intention, to deprive the benefit of the decree, is refusing to pay the decretal amount inspite of having sufficient means to pay. The Decree Holder has not discharged that obligation by any cogent evidence. Then the impugned order is clearly in contravention of the ruling of the Supreme Court. ( 5 ) IN this court, learned counsel for the Decree Holder has fairly submitted that the Judgment Debtor is not without means in asmuch as he has a share in the joint family property. If there is a decree against the coparcener or a sharer, there is a mode of execution available to the bank. The Bank should pursue that mode to secure the individual interest in the immoveable property attached and sold. Sending the Judgment Debtor to prison for a period of three months, less or more, is not a way of realising the decretal amount. Bank's business is to collect the Money's due to it and ensure repayment of loan or decretal amount and not prosecute a proceeding which will deprive a person's liberty. The Bank is a statutory body and should act with great responsibility in realising its amounts. Sending to prison is not a fair means of realising the loan advanced. ( 6 ) SUBJECT to the above observations, revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside with liberty to the Decree Holder in the same execution proceedings to take out appropriate proceeding to realise its amounts. --- *** --- .