ANKINAPALLI OBUL REDDY Vs. DADIBATHINA CHINA GURAVA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The C.R.P. is filed against the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kavali in I.A.No. 45 of 2000 in O.S.No. 2 of 2000.

(2.) The petitioner is the defendant. Respondent No. 1-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of certain sums from the petitioner herein in O.S.No. 2 of 2000. Pending suit, he filed I.A.No. 45 of 2000 under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking attachment before Judgment. The said application, after hearing the parties was allowed by an order dated 17-4-2000 against the said order, the present Revision has been filed.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the lower Court failed to observe the mandatory provisions contained in Order XXXVIII of C.P.C.; as such the order passed by the lower Court is wholly erroneous and contrary to law. The learned Counsel further submits that the suit itself is not maintainable in view of the averments made in the written statement but even otherwise the lower Court has to satisfy prima facie that the petitioner is about to dispose of whole or any part of the property or is about to remove the whole or any part of the property from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. Such a finding was not recorded and therefore it is a violation of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 C.P.C.