JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. A thumbnail sketch of the relevant facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus: (i) As against the order of arrest passed by the Executing Court, viz., the District Munsif Court, Udhagamandalam in E.P.No.47 of 2011 in O.S.No.67 of 2005, the present revision is focussed on the main ground that when admittedly as per the decree holder, the Judgement Debtor/revision petitioner is having immovable property, the decree holder was not justified in seeking arrest of the judgment debtor and the court was not justified in ordering arrest in view of the judgment of this Court reported in 100 LW 431. (ii) A mere running of the eye over the cited judgment reported in 100 LW 431 would display and demonstrate that the factual scenario involved in that case is different from this case. In the cited precedent, it is contemplated that when the Judgement Debtor is willing to pay the decreetal amount in instalments because of his financial crunch, opportunity has to be given to him and holus bolus, he should not be put behind the bars. 3. But, in this case, absolutely, there is nothing to show that the revision petitioner ever ventured to apply to the Executing Court for paying the amount in instalments. In fact, the copy of the counter filed before the Executing Court was to the effect that the revision petitioner/judgment debtor was a man of no means and he would submit before the court that he had no movable or immovable properties and that if at all the decree holder wants to recover the money, it is open for him to proceed as against the movable or immovable properties of the Judgment Debtor. Such a contention would not enure to the benefit of the Judgment Debtor to seek for cancellation of the arrest order. 4. As such, it is ex facie and prima facie clear that as of now as per the revision petitioner/judgment debtor he is having immovable properties and he instead of raising amount with the help of his property and discharging the loan, simply seeks for cancellation of the arrest order, which is not tenable and as such, it is open for the revision petitioner/judgment debtor to approach the Executing Court seeking appropriate reliefs, if at all, he is entitled to one as per law. 5. With the above observation, this civil revision petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.