GUNTUPALLI RAMALINGESWARA 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 r/w Sec.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: Heard. Issue conditional attachment on furnishing on furnishing third party security within (48) hours and notice. Call on 22.4.2004. The attachment warrant was entrusted to the Bailiff on 16.4.2004. He served copy of the warrant on the defendant and took his signature in a token of receipt of the same and allowed time till 18.4.2000 for furnishing third party security. On 18.4.2004 the bailiff went to the house of the defendant and found it locked. He was informed by the wife of the defendant that the defendant was in no way concerned with the house hold articles as the same were purchased by the amount given by her parents towards pasupukumkuma. She seems to have produced the receipts evidencing the purchase of the properties that were sought for attachment. Since the door of the house was found locked, the warrant could not be executed and the same was returned by the Bailiff to the court on 22.4.2004. In the mean while, the defendant filed counter resisting the application. He also filed Civil Revision Petition on 10.5.2004 assailing the order dated 15.4.2004 and moved C.M.P.No.11187 of 2004 seeking interim suspension. This court by order dated 11.5.2004 granted interim suspension till 30-6-2004 and subsequently it came to be extended until further orders by order dated 21.6.2004.

(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 (1991 (ii) ALT 343) L. Narayana Reddy V. Canara Bank (1991 (ii) ALT 582), S.P.V. Babu V. Varalakshmi Finance Corporation (1996 (4) ALD 453 (DB) and A. Obul Reddy VS. D.C. Gurava Reddy (2000 (5) ALT 125).