JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 9.1.1996 used by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, in execution Case No. 24 1990 whereby the learned Additions District Judge rejected the application of the petitioner under section 47 & O. 21 r/w Section 151 CPC. 2. The non-petitioner State Bank of India, Jodhpur instituted a suit against the petitioner and his son Ghewar Chand (non-petitioner r.o. 2) being Civil Original Suit N . 85 /87 in the Court of the learned District Judge, Jodhpur. The above suit was decreed against the petitioner and non- petitioner no. 2. The non-petitioner no. 2 State Bank of India filed an execution application and made attempts to recover the decretal amount from the petitioner judgment- debtor. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is a very poor person and has no means of his livelihood. On the other hand, non-petitioner no. 2 has got lot of property and, the decree can conveniently be satisfied if the non-petitioner no. 1 decides to proceed the execution of the above decree against non-petitioner no. 2. The petitioner has further submitted that his house is exempt from attachment because he is a labourer. He had also alleged that there is complicity between the decree holder and the judgment debtor non-petitioner no. 2. 3. The application was resisted by the non-petitioners. After hearing both the parties, the learned Additional District Judge by the impugned order dismissed the above application filed by the petitioner. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have carefully gone through the record of the case. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the decree-holder ought to have proceeded against non- petitioner No. 2, who has enough property to satisfy the decree. He also took shelter under section 60 and pleaded that the house cannot be attached as he is a labourer. He relies on Bank of Baroda v. R.M. Patwa & Anr., 1996 (2) SC 64 ; Ram Naresh v. Ganesh Mistri, AIR 1952 All. 680 ; Gowranna & Anr. v. Basavana Gowd, AIR 1975 Karnataka 84 . 6. The learned counsel appearing for the non-petitioner has submitted that the learned trial Court has correctly decided the application filed by the petitioner. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. 8. 680 ; Gowranna & Anr. v. Basavana Gowd, AIR 1975 Karnataka 84 . 6. The learned counsel appearing for the non-petitioner has submitted that the learned trial Court has correctly decided the application filed by the petitioner. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. 8. It is at the discretion of the decree holder to execute the decree against either of the judgment-debtor when the decree is against two persons. In the instant case, the debtor was non-petitioner No. 2 and the petitioner stood surety for him. However, the decree was passed against both the defendants jointly as well as severally. Therefore, the decree-holder was perfectly within its rights to execute the decree against any of the judgment debtors. 9. Regarding the second ground that the decree-holder cannot execute the decree by attachingiand auctioning the house of the petitioner under section 60 CPC, it may be stated that the after was not pleaded in the application and it was not argued before the learned Addl. District Judge. This point has been raised for the first time before this Court. However, the petitioner can always resist the execution of the decree, if the law gives him a right to resist the same. 10. For the above reasons, I do not find any substance in this revision petition and it is hereby dismissed summarily.Revision dismissed. *******