ORDER : M. Seetharama Murti, J. 1. This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the unsuccessful 2nd respondent-2nd JDr assailing the order, dated 15.7.2015, of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, passed in EP No. 286 of 2013 in OS No. 76 of 2011. 2. I have heard the submissions of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner-2nd JDr ['2nd JDr', for short] and of the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent-DHr ['DHr', for short]. Respondents 2 to 7-JDrs 1, 3 to 6 and 7 are stated to be not necessary parties. I have perused the material record. 3. After the original suit of the DHr Chit Fund Company was decreed, on 13.4.2012, the subject execution petition was filed for arrest of the JDrs 2, 3 and 5 for realization of the decree amount. The DHr pleaded that the said JDrs are paying income tax and that amongst the said three JDrs, the 2nd JDr is proprietor of M/s. Sai Lakshmi Sewing Machines at Station Road, Guntur, and that he is getting an income of Rs. 25,000/- per month and is having sufficient means and capacity to pay, in one lumpsum, the amount due under the decree and that if arrest is ordered, the 2nd JDr will pay the amount due under the decree and mentioned in the EP and hence, the execution petition is filed. 4. The 2nd JDr, who is the present revision petitioner, filed a counter contending inter alia that he has no capacity to pay the decree amount/the amount mentioned in the execution petition and prayed for dismissal of the execution petition. 5. During the course of enquiry an officer of the DHr Chit Fund Company and the 2nd JDr were examined as PW 1 and RW 1. One of the other JDrs against whom also the EP for arrest was filed was examined as RW 2. The other JDr remained ex parte. 6. The executing Court ordered arrest of all the three JDrs viz., JDrs 2, 3 and 5 and directed them to pay the amount due to the DHr on or before 17.8.2015 and further directed for issuance of warrants of arrest on payment of batta by the DHr in the event of non-payment of the EP amount by the said JDrs within the stipulated time. 7. 7. Aggrieved thereof, the 2nd JDr filed this revision petition, inter alia, contending as follows: 'The DHr has already settled the case with the principal debtor. Hence, the DHr has no right to insist upon execution of the decree against this JDr. The EP is not maintainable. This JDr was arrested twice on 28.6.2018 and 8.8.2018. On both the said earlier occasions, he expressed his inability to pay the decree amount and stated that he has filed an insolvency petition in JP No. 6 of 2018 on the file of Senior Civil Court, Guntur, and that the same is pending. The health of the 2nd JDr, who is aged 64 years, is deteriorating. He is not of sound health. Hence, he cannot be imprisoned. No purpose would be served by repeatedly arresting an insolvent.' 8. Learned Counsel for the 2nd JDr placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Jolly George Varghese and another v. The Bank of Cochin, (1980) 2 SCC 360 , in support of the contention that the JDr cannot be subjected to arrest and cannot be imprisoned when he is an insolvent and has no means to pay the decree debt and when it cannot be said that he is willfully and deliberately evading payment of the decree debt though capable of paying the same. 9. Learned Counsel for the DHr Chit Fund Company contended as follows:- 'The 2nd JDr is running M/s. Sai Lakshmi Sewing Machines and he is filing income tax returns and he is a solvent person. His objections are also over ruled while ordering his arrest by the order impugned by him in this revision. Under Section 8 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, ('Act', for short) the DHr company is exempted from insolvency proceedings and hence though an insolvency petition is wrongly filed and entertained, it is no bar for arrest of the 2nd JDr. 10. I have given earnest consideration to the facts and submissions. 11. Dealing first with the contention of the learned Counsel for the DHr based on Section 8 of the Act, it is profitable to refer to the said provision of law, which reads as under: "8. Exemption of corporation, etc., from insolvency proceedings.-No insolvency petition shall be presented against any corporation or against any association or company registered under any enactment for the time being in force." 12. Exemption of corporation, etc., from insolvency proceedings.-No insolvency petition shall be presented against any corporation or against any association or company registered under any enactment for the time being in force." 12. A plain consideration of the said provision makes it manifest that an insolvency petition filed against a company is not maintainable in view of the exemption of the companies/corporations from insolvency proceedings. Be that as it may. 13. Dealing with the merits of the matter, it is to be noted that insofar as the 2nd JDr is concerned, the DHr filed copies of income tax returns of the 2nd JDr for the years 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and also his pan card and the same are exhibited as Exhibits P1, P4, P7 and P10 and no other documents are filed. The EP is filed in the year 2013. After enquiry, the order impugned came to be passed in the year 2015. No income tax returns of the later years are filed to show that the 2nd JDr earned income in the later years and is still earning and filing income tax returns. The order impugned does not disclose as to what was the income returned in the earlier years related to which the copies of income tax returns are filed. As per settled law, arrest shall not be ordered unless willful failure to pay with the object of obstructing and delaying the execution of the decree inspite of having sufficient means is established. In the case on hand, the 2nd JDr, having filed an insolvency petition, is in distress. He was arrested twice. It is not stated by either side as to whether he has served the measure of sentence on those occasions or whether he was released on the DHr not depositing the subsistence allowance or for any other reason. The above said facts reflect his inability and incapacity to pay and, therefore, it is possible to accept that there is no willful failure to pay inspite of having sufficient means. The above said facts reflect his inability and incapacity to pay and, therefore, it is possible to accept that there is no willful failure to pay inspite of having sufficient means. In that view of the matter, even though his insolvency petition is not maintainable insofar as the present DHr Chit Fund Company is concerned, yet as his earlier income is immaterial and as his present financial position and inability to satisfy the debt indicate that he is in penury and that there is no mala fide refusal and/or willful failure to pay the decree debt inspite of having means to discharge the decree debt, it is not lawful and fair to order his arrest. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that ordering arrest of the 2nd JDr one more time, knowing that such course would be of no avail, would tantamount to violating his life and liberty. Hence, I am of the considered view that the petitioner-2nd JDr is not liable for arrest. The above view of this Court draws ample support from the precedential guidance in the decision in Jolly George Varghese and another's case (supra). 14. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order impugned insofar it related to ordering arrest of the revision petitioner-2nd JDr is only set aside. In the event the revision petitioner-2nd JDr is already arrested, he shall be released forthwith as a sequel to this order. 15. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.