Judgment : 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order, dated 19.06.2014, made in unnumbered E.A.No. of 2014 in E.P.No.22 of 2011, on the file of Principal District Court, Tirunelveli. 2. The petitioners were the guarantors for the amounts borrowed by the debtors from the decree holder. The decree holder invoked arbitration proceedings against the debtors and guarantors and an award has been passed on 18.11.2010 in their favour. The decree holder has filed E.P.No.22 of 2011 before the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli, for realising the amounts as per the award. 3. The petitioners have filed an application under Section 47 C.P.C., for dismissal of Execution Petition in E.P.No.22 of 2011 as not executable. The Registry has returned the said application as the same was not maintainable. The petitioners re-submitted the same giving reasons as to how the said application is maintainable. The application was posted before the learned Judge and after hearing the counsel for the petitioners and considered all the objections raised by the petitioners and the materials available on record, the learned Judge held that the application is not maintainable and rejected the application filed under Section 47 of C.P.C., by the petitioners. Against the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed. 4. The learned Judge has taken note of that the petitioners have not taken any proceedings to set aside the arbitration award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Further, the contention of the petitioners that without attachment, the mortgaged property cannot brought for sale, was rejected on the ground that the mortgaged property need not be attached for selling the property. Similarly, the contention of the petitioners that without preliminary decree and final decree in a mortgage suit, the decree is not executable. This contention was rejected by the learned Judge, as in the arbitration proceedings, there is no provision of preliminary award and final award. 5. Further, the contention of the petitioners that only after executing the decree against the judgment debtors, the decree holder can proceed against the guarantor, is untenable and contrary to well settled law. It is open to the decree holder to choose any one of the judgment debtor for realising the decretal amount. 5. Further, the contention of the petitioners that only after executing the decree against the judgment debtors, the decree holder can proceed against the guarantor, is untenable and contrary to well settled law. It is open to the decree holder to choose any one of the judgment debtor for realising the decretal amount. Therefore, there is no infirmity or illegality in the order, dated 19.06.2014, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, in unnumbered E.A.No. of 2014 in E.P.No.22 of 2011. 6. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.