Judgment : This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the judgment-debtors under the arbitration awards. The respondent, who succeeded in securing arbitration award in A.P.No.137/2001, filed E.P.No.18/2002 on the file of the learned District Judge, Anantapur, for arrest and detention of the petitioners in civil prison for non-payment of the decretal amount. The respondent has also filed E.P.Nos.19/2002 and 20/2002 in A.P.Nos.138/2001 and 136/2001, respectively. By Common Order dated 3-2-2011, the learned District Judge allowed E.P.No.18/2002 and ordered arrest of the petitioners. Assailing the said order, the petitioners filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. At the hearing, Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel advanced two submissions, namely, (i) that mere possession of property by itself would not be enough for the decree-holder to seek arrest of the judgment-debtors and that unless malafide intention to evade payment of the decretal amount is pleaded and established, the arrest of the judgment-debtors cannot be ordered; and (ii) that the Court below having already directed attachment of the properties of the petitioners by common order dated 3-2-2011, committed an error in ordering their arrest and detention in civil prison. 3. Sri K.V. Subrahmanya Narsu, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioners utterly lack bonafides. That in the first place, the petitioners have pleaded that they have no notice of the arbitral proceedings before passing the award which was found false; that they have subsequently challenged the arbitral awards by filing the O.Ps. and failed therein and that the appeals filed by the petitioners were also dismissed by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. The learned counsel further submitted that even though the petitioners have sufficient means to pay the decretal amount as established by the respondent before the Court below, they have been deliberately evading payment and hence the Court below is justified in ordering the petitioners’ arrest. The learned counsel further submitted that the decree-holder has an option to execute the decree by any of the methods envisaged under the provisions of Order XXI Rule 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the Code”) and that the law is well settled that Court can order attachment of the properties and arrest of the judgment-debtors, simultaneously. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioners have raised two fold contentions before the lower Court, namely, that the respondent has not filed the decree for execution of the award and that the petitioners’ property, which is sought to be attached, is a joint family property and that the petitioners do not have sufficient means to pay the decretal amount. The first objection raised by the petitioners was rejected by the lower Court by holding that under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the award itself shall be considered as the decree and that no separate decree need be obtained. Since no challenge is made to this aspect in this revision, it is not necessary for this Court to delve into the same. 6. With reference to the second objection, in order to prove that the petitioners are possessed of sufficient means, the respondents have marked Exs.A-2 to A-6 to establish that the petitioners are owning Acs.4-61 cents of land in Kakkalapalli Polam. The petitioners have not denied the fact that they own the said property. Their contention was that the said property belongs to the joint family. It is not their pleaded case that there are any legal constraints for alienating the joint family property and paying the decretal amount. Under Section 58 of the Code, the sine qua non for ordering arrest and detention of the judgment-debtors in civil prison is that despite having means to pay the amount under the decree or some substantial part thereof, they have refused or neglected to pay the same. In Jolly George Varghese Vs. The Bank of Cochin ( AIR 1980 S.C. 470 )on which the learned Senior Counsel has placed heavy reliance, while interpreting the words “…or has had since the date of the decree, the means to pay the amount of the decree…” in Section 51 of the Code, the Supreme Court held that there must be some element of bad faith beyond mere indifference to pay, or some deliberate or recusant disposition in the past or, alternatively, current means to pay the decree or a substantial part of it. The Supreme Court further held that the present needs of the judgment-debtor are relevant consideration for considering his conduct in not paying the decretal amount. The Supreme Court further held that the present needs of the judgment-debtor are relevant consideration for considering his conduct in not paying the decretal amount. 7. In my opinion, once the judgment debtor’s means to pay is established, unless the judgment debtor pleads extenuating circumstances that despite having means to pay the decretal amount, he is unable to discharge the same, his conduct in not discharging the decretal amount even though he is possessed of the means, would give rise to a reasonable presumption that he is refusing or neglecting to pay the decretal amount with a mala fide intention to evade payment to the decree-holder. As noted above, no reasons have been putforth by the petitioners as to why they are not able to liquidate the property and pay the decretal amount. In the light of these facts, I am unable to accept the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the Court below has committed an error in ordering the petitioners’ arrest for non-payment of the amount under the awards. 8. As regards the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that in view of the orders attaching the property of the petitioners, the Court below ought not to have ordered their arrest, the law is well settled that a decree-holder has the right to choose the mode of execution of the decree under Order XXI Rule 30, r/w. Section 51 of the Code. The decree-holder can simultaneously seek execution of the decree by delivery of property specifically decreed; by attachment and sale or by sale without attachment of any property; or by arrest and detention in prison for such period not exceeding the period specified in Section 58 where the arrest and detention is permissible under that Section or by appointing a receiver (See : Shyam Singh Vs. Collector, District Hamirpur ((1993) 1 SCC (Supp.) 693)and Guvvala Sudhakara Reddy Vs. Katamreddy Venuogopala Reddy ( 2006(2) ALT 632 )). The order of the Court below directing both arrest and attachment of the property of the petitioners is therefore, in conformity with the settled legal principles and hence no exception can be taken thereto. 9. For the above mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. 10. As a sequel, interim order dated 6-6-2011 is vacated and C.R.P.M.P.No.1107/2011 is disposed of as infructuous.