VIJAY Vs. MAHADESWARASWAMY INFRATECH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P.No.48315/2018 is filed challenging the order dtd. 6/3/2018 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.241/2018 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru (for short, 'the trial Court'). W.P.No.48314/2018 is filed challenging the order dtd. 1/3/2018 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.223/2018 by the trial Court. W.P.No.48313/2018 is filed challenging the order dtd. 22/2/2018 passed on I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.182/2018 by the trial Court.

(2.) Sri.Manjunath Prasad V., learned counsel for the petitioners in these petitions submits that the issues involved in these petitions are similar, hence they are clubbed together. It is submitted that respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of money against the petitioners herein and in the said suits, he has filed an application under Order 38 Rules 5 and 6 of CPC seeking for attachment of the properties before the judgment. The trial Court, even before issuing notice, passed orders on those applications without assigning any reasons. It is further submitted that the orders impugned clearly indicate that the petitioners were directed to furnish security for the suit claim on the next date of hearing and on failure of which, the order of attachment would become absolute, but by the next date of hearing, the suit summons could not be served on the petitioners. However, as per the impugned orders, the attachment became absolute. It is also submitted that the approach of the trial Court in passing the order of attachment before the judgment is contrary to the settled principles of law and the principles enumerated in Order XXXVIII Rules 5 and 6 of CPC. It is submitted that in the application seeking for attachment it is not indicated that the petitioners are making an attempt to dispose of their properties, which would defeat the probable decree in favour of the respondents. In the absence of any such exercise by the trial Court, the impugned orders are required to be interfered with by this Court. It is submitted that in one of the petitions i.e., in W.P.No.48313/2018, this Court has stayed the impugned order assailed in the said writ petition.

(3.) There is no representation for the respondentplaintiff.