ORDER : 1. The civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decreetal orders, dated 21.04.2010, made in E.P. No. 2 of 2008 in O.S. No. 145 of 2006, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palani. 2. The respondent/plaintiff has obtained a decree against the revision petitioners and others in O.S. No. 145 of 2006, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palani. Armed with the said decree, it is found that the respondent/plaintiff had preferred E.P. No. 2 of 2008 against the revision petitioners and one Vetrivelchelian, who is the seventh defendant in the suit for recovery of money and the mode of the execution sought for by the respondent/plaintiff is under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is, thus, found that the relief sought by the respondent/plaintiff in the execution proceedings is to detain the respondents in the execution petition in civil prison in the event of their failure to pay the decreetal amount. It is seen that according to the respondent/ plaintiff, the respondents in the execution petition have sufficient means to pay the decreetal amount and despite the same, inasmuch as they had not cared to pay the decreetal amount, it is stated that the above said execution proceedings have been initiated against them. 3. The revision petitioners contested the execution proceedings initiated by the respondent/ plaintiff as above stated by alleging that they are only the guarantors to the suit amount and when the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to proceed against the estate of the original borrower, namely, Muthu Manickam, the respondent/plaintiff, without resorting to the above said course, had deliberately preferred the execution proceedings as against them personally and hence, the execution petition is not maintainable. It is further contended on their part that the decree has not been passed in tune with the pleadings set out in the plaint and hence, the same could not be executed by the respondent/plaintiff. 4. It is found that in support of the contentions of either parties, no oral and documentary evidence has been adduced in the matter. 5. It is further contended on their part that the decree has not been passed in tune with the pleadings set out in the plaint and hence, the same could not be executed by the respondent/plaintiff. 4. It is found that in support of the contentions of either parties, no oral and documentary evidence has been adduced in the matter. 5. The Court below, on a consideration that the decree had been passed against the revision petitioners as well as others and accordingly, the respondent/plaintiff being entitled to execute the decree, as such, as against the revision petitioners also, ordered the execution petition and directed the arrest of the revision petitioners in the execution petition. Impugning the same, the present civil revision petition has been laid. 6. It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that when the respondent/plaintiff is in a position to execute the decree as against the estate of the deceased Muthu Manickam, the initiation of the execution proceedings as against them personally, they being only the guarantors to the suit amount as such is not maintainable and on the above sole ground alone the impugned order is liable to be set aside. However, when as per the decree, the revision petitioners are also liable to pay the decreetal amount, it is found that the option of execution as against the particular judgment debtors being available to the decree holder, the contention of the revision petitioners that the respondent/ plaintiff is entitled to proceed against them only after initiating action against the estate of the deceased Muthu Manickam as such cannot be accepted in any manner. It is, therefore, found that the Court below has rightly discountenanced the above plea of the revision petitioners in the execution petition. 7. It is, therefore, found that the Court below has rightly discountenanced the above plea of the revision petitioners in the execution petition. 7. Not stopping there, it is further contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the Court below had not endeavoured to proceed in the matter in accordance with law and there has been no enquiry conducted as contemplated under law to determine whether the revision petitioners are possessed with sufficient means to pay the decreetal amount and when with reference to the same, there is no material at all placed on the part of the respondent/plaintiff and also no enquiry as such been conducted by the Court below as regards the same, it is contended that the impugned order could not be sustained in the eyes of law and therefore, it is stated that the impugned order should be set aside. In this connection, the decisions reported in (1980) 2 SCC 360 , Jolly George Varghese and Another vs. The Bank of Cochin, 2000 (II) CTC 168 , M. Muthuswamy vs. Supasri Chit Funds, Coimbatore and Another and (2009) 7 MLJ 1210 , A. Nanjundan vs. Alamelu are relied upon. 8. As rightly put forth by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, it is found that when the respondent/plaintiff had come forward with the execution petition seeking the arrest of the revision petitioners for the non-payment of the decreetal amount on the footing that they have not paid the decreetal amount despite being possessed of sufficient means, it is found that at the foremost it is for the respondent/plaintiff to establish that the revision petitioners have adequate and sufficient means to pay the decreetal amount and despite being possessed of the same, the revision petitioners had been deliberately avoiding the payment of the decreetal amount. With reference to the above facts, it is found that other than the bald plea that the revision petitioners have adequate means, no material as such have been produced by the respondent/plaintiff before the Court below to evidence that the revision petitioners are possessed of sufficient means to pay the decreetal amount. With reference to the same, it is seen that the respondent/plaintiff had not even chosen to adduce oral evidence on its part. Further, no documentary proof has also been produced. With reference to the same, it is seen that the respondent/plaintiff had not even chosen to adduce oral evidence on its part. Further, no documentary proof has also been produced. When such being the position, it is found that it is not understood as to on what basis the Court below had ordered arrest of the revision petitioners by entertaining the execution petition preferred by the respondent/plaintiff. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that not even a finding has been rendered by the Court below that the respondent/plaintiff had established the solvency of the revision petitioners and despite the same, they had been deliberately avoiding the payment of the decreetal amount. Equally, there is no finding by the Court below that the revision petitioners are also possessed of sufficient means and despite the same, they are not paying the decreetal amount. With reference to the same, there is nil discussion by the Court below and also no finding has been given by the Court below. No doubt, the revision petitioners have also not specifically stated in the counter that they are not possessed of sufficient means to pay the decreetal amount. Be that as it may, when the respondent/plaintiff has initiated the execution proceedings seeking for a particular set of reliefs as provided under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 C.P.C. it is seen that, as outlined in the above said decisions, it is for the respondent/plaintiff to establish the same by acceptable and convincing evidence. When the same is completely lacking in the present case, it is found that the Court below had erred in entertaining the execution petition and consequently, erred in directing the arrest of the revision petitioners and it is, thus, found that the impugned order of the Court below cannot be allowed to sustain in the eyes of law. 9. In the light of the above discussions, the fair and decreetal orders, dated 21.04.2010, made in E.P. No. 2 of 2008 in O.S. No. 145 of 2006, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palani, are set aside and resultantly, E.P. No. 2 of 2008 is dismissed. At the end, the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.