JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned District Judge, Bhilwara, dated November 16, 1981 passed in Execution Case No. 18/80. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus. 2. The decree-holder non-petitioner No. 1 obtained a decree against the judgment-debtor non-petitioner Leela Dhar as principal-debtor and judgment-debtor petitioner as his guarantor. An execution application was moved by the decree-holder against both the judgment-debtors. The judgment-debtor petitioner Deep Chand raised an objection that only after exhausting all remedies available against the person and properties of judgment-debtor Leela Dhar, coercive steps for the recovery of the decretal amount can be taken against him and not otherwise. The learned District Judge repelled the objection and passed order for the issue of warrant under Order 21, Rule 30, Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment-debtor petitioner Deep Chand which had been challenged in this revision petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Deep Chand contends that as per term No. 4 of the decree under execution, execution can be levied against the judgment-debtor petitioner Deep Chand only after the decree-holder fails to realise the decretal amount by the sale of the car and from the person and properties of the judgment-debtor Leela Dhar. He further contends that three properties of the judgment-debtor Leela Dhar have been attached. Objection petitions under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code, were filed against the two properties, they have been decided against the objector and these properties have been held to be belonging to the judgment-debtor Leela Dhar and the decretal amount can well be realised by auctioning these properties. 4. In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the decree-holder non-petitioner No. 1 that the decree-holder can realise the decretal amount from the judgment-debtor petitioner Deep Chand and judgment debtor non-petitioner Leela Dhar simultaneously. He further contended that appeals have been filed by both the objectors against the orders dismissing their objection and stay orders have been obtained. 5. Para 4 of the decree under execution runs as under : (4) Yadi car ke vikray va prativadi kray-1 ke vyaktigat sampati se decree kee santusti nahi hoti hai. To prativadi Kray-2 vyaktigat se hogi. He further contended that appeals have been filed by both the objectors against the orders dismissing their objection and stay orders have been obtained. 5. Para 4 of the decree under execution runs as under : (4) Yadi car ke vikray va prativadi kray-1 ke vyaktigat sampati se decree kee santusti nahi hoti hai. To prativadi Kray-2 vyaktigat se hogi. It is thus clear that the decree-holder is first to realise the decretal amount from the car and then from the person and properties of the judgment-debtor non-petitioner No. 2 Leela Dhar. It is not in dispute that the decree-holder got three properties attached saying that they belong to the judgment-debtor Leela Dhar and objections preferred against two properties out of three properties attached have been dismissed. However, it is correct that appeals have been filed against the dismissal of objection petition. From these facts, it cannot be said that the decree-holder has exhausted all available means against the judgment-debtor Leela Dhar. 6. The learned counsel for the decree-holder discloses that no appilcation for recovery of the decretal amount from the judgment-debtor Leela Dhar has been moved by his detention in civil prison. It may also be mentioned here that in execution application such a prayer has already been made by the decree-holder. There is no bar for the execution of the decree against the person and property of the judgment-debtor simultaneously. Of course, the provisions of Order 21, Rule 21 of the Civil Procedure Code gives discretion to the Executing Court to refuse simultaneous execution in certain cases but discretion has to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily or capriciously. The decree-holder may move an application under Order 21, Rule 37 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment-debtor Leela Dhar in the pending execution case. Thus th revision petition deserves to be allowed. 7. It may be made clear that the execution case will proceed against the judgment-debtor petitioner Deep Chand for the recovery of the decretal amount from him if the decree-holder fails to realise the same from he person and property of the principal judgment-debtor Leela Dhar and the said car. 8. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the order of the learned District Judge dated November 16, 1981 is set aside. Parties are left to bear their own costs. 8. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the order of the learned District Judge dated November 16, 1981 is set aside. Parties are left to bear their own costs. The file of the execution case be forthwith sent to the learned District Judge, Bhilwara.Revision allowed. *******