GUNTUPALLI RAMALINAGESWARA RAO Vs. BHATTALA VEERABHADRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is directed against the order-dated 15.4.2004 passed in I.A. No. 237 of 2004 in O.S. No. 56 of 2004 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem by which the learned Senior Civil Judge issued conditional attachment.

(2.) The respondent is the plaintiff and the petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No. 56 of 2004. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 1,49,710/-basing on the promissory notes executed by him on 15.4.2000 and 14.5.2000. He filed I.A. No. 237 of 2004 under Order 38, Rules 5 and 6 of CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking attachment from judgment of the petition schedule properties. The properties sought for attachment have been detailed in the schedule annexed to the said petition. He enclosed third party affidavits of K. Jayaramayya to the effect that the defendant is making arrangements to alienate his movable properties in his house and thereby trying to leave the jurisdiction of the Court and that the defendant has offered to sell the moveable properties such as colour T.V., refrigerator and other articles to him. The order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge on 15.4.2004 reads as follows:

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner/ defendant submits that the impugned order has been passed by the Trial Court without reaching satisfaction as contemplated under Rule 5(1) of Order 38 of CPC and therefore the impugned order is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be set aside. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the decisions of our High Court in Yenamala Chandra Reddy v. Nuvvula Chandramouli Naidu, , L. Narayana Reddy v. Canara Bank, , S.P.V. Babu v. Varalakshmi Finance Corporation, 1996 (4) ALD 453 (DB) and A. Obul Reddy v. D.C. Gurava Reddy, .