M S SAKTHIVEL Vs. R SEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the defendants in the suit filed by the respondent.

(2.) The respondent/plaintiff filed an application to direct the petitioners/defendants to furnish security to the extent of the suit amount or to appear before the Court to show cause why they should not be asked to furnish security under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C Accordingly, the trial Court on 1.7.1999 issued notice to the petitioners/defendants returnable by 16.7.1999 and they were further directed to furnish security. On 16.7.1999, the defendants entered appearance through counsel and a counter was also filed on that date. On the same day, further order was passed by the trial Court directing the petitioner to furnish security by 8.10.1999. When the matter was taken up on 8.10.1999, the trial Court, without conducting any enquiry, straightaway ordered attachment, since the security was not furnished. This order has been challenged in this Civil Revision Petition by the petitioners/defendants.

(3.) I heard the learned counsel for the parties.