M. RAMACHANDRA RAO Vs. VARAPRASAD RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisions are consolidated for purpose of disposal of a common order.

(2.) By an order on I.A. III in O.S. No. 177 of 1988 the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Koppal, directed the revision petitioner-defendant to furnish security to the claim made in the two suits for Rs. 28,275/- and Rs. 35,950/- respectively. Being aggrieved by the order, the revision petitioners have filed these Revisions. The trial Judge in para-8 of the order found that the revision petitioner owned no immovable property within the jurisdiction of the Court. All that the revision petitioner possessed was admittedly certain pensionary benefits received by him which were found to be unattachable under Section 60 CPC. The trial Judge, however, while disposing of I.A. III called upon the revision petitioner to furnish security as aforesaid.

(3.) Order 38 Rule 5 CPC enables a Court to attach property of a defendant before judgment on the ground that the defendant with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of the decree that may be passed against him, is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property or is about to remove the whole or part of his property from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. In such a situation, the Court could call upon the defendant to furnish security in such a sum as may be specified in the order or to produce or place at the disposal of the Court as may be sufficient to satisfy the decree or to appear and show cause why he should not furnish security. Order 38 Rule 5(3) enables a Court to pass a conditional order of attachment of the whole or any portion of the property so specified.