KOUSHIK ADVERTISING MEDIA HYDERABAD Vs. POLURU GOPALA KRISHNAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed O.S.No.389 of 2009 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddutur against the petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs. 98,000/-. He has also filed I.A.No.1060 of 2009 under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, (for brevity, CPC") with a prayer to direct attachment of the items of property mentioned therein, before judgment, alleging that the petitioner is likely to remove them from the jurisdiction of the Court. The dispute is in relation to entrustment of advertising agency by the petitioner in favour of the respondent.

(2.) The trial court passed an order dated 02.01.2010 directing the petitioner to furnish security within 48 hours and in default, directed the bailiff to attach the petition schedule property. Petitioner feels aggrieved by the same.

(3.) Smt.Jyothieswar Gogineni, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent was resolved amicably through arbitration and the conditions imposed therein, have been complied with by both the parties. She contends that the respondent misused the process of Courts by filing as many as four suits before the same Court and to continue its business, the petitioner had to deposit Rs. 3,20,000/- in other suits. The learned counsel further submits that the timing of the order passed in the I.A. was such that the compliances in the condition became impossible and invariably it led to attachment.