ORDER : 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the Executing Court in E.P.No.165/2012 directing arrest of petitioner vide order dated 30.05.2016 produced at Annexure-B. 2. Facts leading to this writ petition briefly stated are that respondents herein filed M.V.C.No.89/2011 against petitioner claiming compensation for causing personal injuries on account of his negligent act. By the judgment and award dated 03.04.2012 claim made by respondents was allowed awarding compensation of Rs.4,10,000/. 3. Respondents filed execution petition seeking recovery of the amount awarded before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chitradurga. In the said execution petition, arrest warrant was issued against petitioner on 13.12.2013. The arrest warrant was executed and petitioner was sent to civil prison on 11.07.2014. He was released on 11.08.2014. It is stated that judgment debtor has paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 12.08.2014 and the case was posted for enquiry. However, at that stage, again arrest warrant was issued on 15.11.2014. On 03.01.2016 petitioner was arrested and brought before the Court and the trial Court sent the petitioner to civil prison. It is stated by petitioner that he was in civil prison till 30.04.2016 from 11.03.2016. Now, the trial Court has again issued arrest warrant on 30.05.2016. Aggrieved by this order, present writ petition has been filed. 4. It is mainly contended by learned counsel for petitioner that orders directing petitioner to commit him to civil prison repeatedly are not in accordance with law. It is his submission that petitioner had no source of income and therefore, he was unable to pay the amount. An enquiry is being held before the Court below regarding the actual extent of share possessed by petitioner in the agricultural land. It is also contended that uncle of petitioner has filed objection as an objector resisting the prayer to bring the agricultural land for sale. The Court below is seized of the matter. Once the Court decides regarding the share to which petitioner is entitled in the agricultural land, learned counsel for petitioner urges, the property can be brought for sale for recovery of the balance amount. I find considerable force in this submission made by learned counsel for petitioner. 5. It is not established that despite having sufficient means, petitioner has been committing default in paying the decreetal amount. His only source of income appears to be agricultural land. I find considerable force in this submission made by learned counsel for petitioner. 5. It is not established that despite having sufficient means, petitioner has been committing default in paying the decreetal amount. His only source of income appears to be agricultural land. The decree holder is entitled to proceed against the agricultural land and as also the moveable property in the form of Swift car which is hypothecated in favour of Syndicate Bank. Instead of proceeding against the said properties, decree holder is repeatedly seeking arrest and detention of judgment debtor. In the circumstances, order passed by the Court below directing arrest of petitioner for the third time and ordering to commit him to civil prison cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for petitioner is right and justified in placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of JOLLY GEORGE VERGHESE & ANOTHER VS THE BANK OF COCHIN– AIR 1980 SC 470 in this connection. 6. Therefore, reserving liberty to decree holder to proceed against the agricultural land in respect whereof enquiry is pending before the Executing Court and also the moveable property/car which is the subject matter of hypothecation in favour of Syndicate Bank, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned order directing arrest and detention of petitioner in civil prison is set aside.