ORDER This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 5-4-2005, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, allowing the petition in E.P. No.115 of 2003 in O.S. NO.94 of 1998, filed by respondent No.1-Andhra Bank, for arrest of the petitioner and another. 2. Respondent No.2 availed loan from respondent No.1 by mortgaging title deeds of his property. The petitioner stood as guarantor to the said loan. As respondent No.2 did not pay the amount, respondent No.1 filed suit in O.S.No.94 of 1998 for recovery of the loan amount from the borrower and the guarantor, and the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, decreed the same. When respondent No.2 and the petitioner failed to pay the decretal amount, respondent No.1 filed the present application, which on contest by respondent No.2 and the petitioner, was allowed by the Court below by reason of the order impugned in this C.R.P. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.1-Bank. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a poor person. The petitioner approached respondent No.1 for a loan for purchasing a buffalo, but the authorities of respondent No.1 misused the signatures affixed by him for the said loan, as if to show that he is a guarantor to the loan borrowed by respondent No.2. He submits that as per the terms and conditions of the decree obtained by respondent No.1, respondent No.1 shall execute the decree by putting the mortgaged property to sale, and the monies so realized shall be adjusted against the satisfaction of the decree, and even after such adjustment, if any monies are still liable to be paid, then respondent No.1 has to apply for a personal decree, and after obtaining personal decree, shall proceed against the principal borrower and the guarantor, but respondent No.1 without putting the mortgaged property to sale and without obtaining personal decree, is proceeding against the decree holders (sic. Judgment-debtors). He submits that the petitioner has no landed property or means to satisfy the decree. Judgment-debtors). He submits that the petitioner has no landed property or means to satisfy the decree. As per the proviso to Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 no arrest of judgment debtor can be ordered unless the Court records reasons that the judgment debtor despite having means to pay is refusing or neglecting to pay the decretal amount, but in the instant case, even though respondent No. I did not adduce any evidence to show that the petitioner despite having means and landed property to satisfy the decree, refused and neglected to pay the decretal amount, yet the Court below contrary to the proviso to Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908, had ordered issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner, which is illegal. In support of his submission that no arrest can be ordered by the court without there being a finding that the judgment debtor despite having means to satisfy the decree, yet is evading payment, placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in Jolly George Verghese v. Bank of Cochin1 and of this Court in K. Anjaneyulu v. S.B.I.2. 5. The decree obtained by respondent No.1 against the petitioner and respondent No.2 is a composite decree, it can execute the decree either by sale of the mortgaged property or against the borrower or the guarantor or both. Respondent No.1 having obtained the decree, it is for respondent No.1 to execute the decree in the manner it likes, and the petitioner, who is a guarantor cannot contend that respondent No.1 should first sell the mortgaged property, and adjust against the decree, and still any more amounts are to be paid under the decree, then proceed against the borrower and the guarantor. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in State Bank of India v. M/s. Index port Registerecd3. 6. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in State Bank of India v. M/s. Index port Registerecd3. 6. Though the petitioner contends that he did not stand as guarantor to the loan availed by respondent No.2 from respondent No.1 and that the signatures affixed by him on his loan papers were misused to show that he stood as guarantor, the fact remains that despite his denial of the same in his evidence in the suit, the Court below had passed a decree against the petitioner and the principal borrower, which attained finality as the petitioner did not assail the said finding in appeal. Therefore, the petitioner now cannot contend that the signature on his loan application was misused by the officials of respondent No.1 to show that he stood as guarantor to the loan taken by respondent No.2 from them. 7. Admittedly, the decree obtained by respondent No.1 is a composite decree. It can either be executed by selling the mortgaged property or proceeded against the principal borrower and guarantor. The decree holder cannot be compelled to execute the decree by selling the mortgaged property first and then proceed against the principal borrower or the guarantor or both. The apex Court having considered this aspect of the matter in State Bank of India v. M/s. Indexport Registered (3 supra), held thus: If the composite decree is a decree which is both a personal decree as well as mortgage decree, without any limitation on its execution, the decree holder, in principle, cannot be forced to first exhaust the remedy by way of execution of the mortgage decree alone and told that only if the amount recovered is insufficient, he can be permitted to take recourse to the execution of the personal decree. Where the money decree was against all the defendants including the guarantor and a mortgage decree against one of the defendants who had mortgaged the shop with the plail1tiff bank, so far as the said shop was concerned and the decree did not put any fetter on the right of the decree holder to execute it against any party whether as a money decree or as a mortgage decree, the decree holder would be entitled to proceed against the guarantor first for the execution of the decree. Moreover, it is the right of the decree holder to proceed with it in a way he likes. Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act itself provides that "the liability of the surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, unless it is otherwise provided by the contract". If on principle a guarantor could be sued without even suing the principal debtor there is no reason, even if the decretal amount is covered by the mortgaged decree, to force the decree holder to proceed against the mortgaged property first and then to proceed against the guarantor. In such a case, when the said decree had become final all pleas as to the rights which the guarantor had had to be taken during trial and not after the decree while execution is being levied. (emphasis supplied) 8. Though as per the terms of the decree, respondent No.1 was permitted to exhaust the remedy of sale of mortgaged property first, but that by itself cannot be a ground to restrain respondent No.1 from proceeding against the principal borrower or guarantor or both for realization of the decretal amount, and more so when the decree is passed against the mortgaged property as also the judgment-debtors who include the principal borrower and the guarantor. The petitioner, as a guarantor, having accepted the terms and conditions of the loan advanced by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2, and he having suffered a composite decree, cannot contend that respondent No.1 should be directed to sell the mortgaged property first, and for recovery of the balance amount, if any, after adjustment of the monies realized through the sale of the mortgaged property, to proceed against the principal borrower and the guarantor. 9. Though the petitioner contends that respondent No.1 failed to prove that the petitioner despite having means and landed property, has refused and neglected to pay the decretal amount, the fact remains P.W.1 in his evidence stated that the petitioner and the principal borrower are having lands, and the petitioner as R.W.1 though disputed the said statement and contended that he is not having any means or landed property, R.W.2, who happens to be the neighbour of the petitioner in his evidence stated that he is deposing on the request of the petitioner. It is in those circumstances, the Court below disbelieved the plea of the petitioner that he has no means or landed property to pay the decretal amount and came to the conclusion that the petitioner despite having means had evaded payment of the decretal amount, and accordingly allowed the petition and ordered issuance of arrest warrant against the petitioner, and no exception can be taken thereto. The Court below before ordering issuance of arrest warrant having considered the means test, as provided under Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the apex Court in Jolly George Verghese v. Bank of Cochin and of this Court in K. Anjaneyulu v. S.B.I., are of no avail to him. 10. The Court below, by ordering arrest of the judgment debtors, cannot be said to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it or exercised its jurisdiction illegally or committed material irregularity, warranting interference by this Court with the impugned order in exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 11. The C.R.P. is devoid of merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.