KONDRU SAMBASIVA RAO Vs. KARRI KAMI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff under Or.38, R.1, C.P.C., for attachment before judgment of the properties of the respondent. Interim attachment was ordered. Subsequently, an application has been filed by the respondent to raise the attachment. The lower Court held as a fact that the judgment-debtor is a rich and prudent man and there is no difficulty for the appellant to realise, in the event of the suit being decreed, the decretal amount. But however, it directed the respondent to furnish a personal bond. Assailing the order of raising the attachment and the latter direction to furnish personal bond, the two C.M.As., have been filed.

(2.) Sri Subbaiah, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the object of the attachment is that in the event of the suit being decreed, there would be no difficulty for the decree-holder to proceed with the execution. The security contemplated is of immoveable security or personal security of third parties and therefore the order of the lower is per se illegal. In support thereof, he relies upon Form VI in the Appendix 'F' of Forms prescribed in the Schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondent, though served, is not appearing either in person or through counsel.

(3.) The facts found by the lower Court have not been disputed. The respondent has a terraced house worth Rs.One Lakh and he has also given an undertaking in the affidavit filed by him that he would not alienate that property. He also filed Exs.A-4 to A-6 ryotwari pattas in his name of certain, lands. Relying thereon, it is found that the respondent is a prudent and rich man and he has got sufficient means to discharge the decree debt, in the event of the suit being decreed. This finding is enough to raise the attachment. But he was directed to give a security bond. The order also recites that he offered a bond and it was returned for compliance. It is true, as contended by Sri Subbaiah, that the object of attachment before judgment under Or.38, R.1. is that there may not be any impediment in the event of a decree being passed against the respondent to realise the decree amount to proceed against the property. Power has been given either to arrest the defendant when he is leaving the limits of the Courts or attempting to sell or dispose of the property or any part thereof. Under Or.38, R.6, where the defendant fails to show cause why he should not furnish security or fails to furnish the security required within the time fixed by the Court, the Court may order that the property specified or such portion thereof as appears sufficient to satisfy any decree which may be passed in the suit, be attached. In such an event, the need to furnish security would arise and Form VI in Appendix F would apply. The recital in Form VI postulates that the security of the property would by third parties. The word "security" has not been defined in the Code. Therefore, what is the meaning of the word "security" in the common parlance, has to be looked into. In Chamber's Twentieth Century Dictionary, the word "Security" has been defined to mean "State, feeling, of means of being secures; protection from espionage; certainty ..... a pledge; a surety; a guarantee; a right conferred on a creditor to make him sure of recovery-usually in plural, bonds or certificates in evidence of debt or property." A reading thereof would give an indication in unmistakable terms that it is a protection or guarantee to the ultimate successful plaintiff to secure a right for recovery of the sum so decreed from the property it should be immoveable property or moveable property. It is common knowledge that security may consist' of moveable property or even an undertaking by a party by making himself bound by a bond duly executed to the satisfaction of the Court. It depends upon the facts and circumstances in each case. In a given case where the Court satisfies from the evidence on record that the defendant has got sufficient means, it may not insist upon execution of a security bond of immoveable property. But in a case where the Court satisfies that interests of justice demands that insistance of execution of a security bond either of the defendant himself or of the properties or of the third parties is necessary, then the execution thereof becomes mandatory. In the latter case, the need to execute the bond in conformity with Form VI would arise. In a given case where the Court on satisfying that there is need to execute a bond be it personal of the defendant or of the third parties that too in the absence of any express prohibition by the statute- viz., by the Court, the Court is free to accept the case. As stated earlier, it depends upon the facts and circumstances in each case and that too on the satisfaction of the Court concerned. Of course, the satisfaction need not be arbitrary or capricious. There must be material facts to come to that conclusion by the Court. In this case, as stated earlier, the Court below found as a fact that the respondent is possessed of sufficient means and is a prudent and rich man. Under those circumstances, the Court directed the respondent to execute a personal bond and the personal bond in such an event need not necessarily be in conformity with Form VI, as contended for by Sri Subbaiah, learned counsel for the appellant. Under those circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the lower Court. Accordingly, the C.M.As. are dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs. Appeals dismissed.