The Revision Petitioner has filed Arbitration case in M.C.No.38 of 2006 for recovery of money against the respondents 1 to 6. Admittedly, the 1st respondent is the Principal Debtor and the respondents 2 to 6 are guarantors in the arbitration case. Accordingly, the Deputy Registrar of Chits passed an award in Arb. Case in M.C.No. 38 of 2006 directing the respondents to settle the amount, however, the opponents failed to settle the amount. Hence, to implement the award passed in Arb. M.C.No. 38 of 2006, the decree holder filed an application in E.P.R.No.140 of 2009 praying to attach and sell the movables as mentioned in the schedule in order to realise the amount. The said application was strongly objected by the respondents stating that the decree holder ought to have taken steps to execute the decree as against the 1st respondent/principal debtor alone and they are not liable to pay the amount. On hearing both sides and on considering the objections of respondents, the Execution Court allowed the application directing the Decree Holder to execute the decree as against 1st respondent/principal debtor alone. Challenging the said findings, the decree holder preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
