NALAZALA SRINIVAS RAO Vs. S LOKESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is defendant in O.S. No.984 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem. The respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.68,900/-. Along with the suit, he filed LA. No. 1895 of 2004 for attachment before judgment. He sought an attachment for a thatched house bearing house No.1-14 with appurtenant site admeasuring Acs.0.05 in Thotapalli Village of Bhadrachalam Mandal of Khammam District. The application was filed under Order XXXV III Rules 5 and 6 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). By order, dated 28-12-2004, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, ordered defendant to furnish third party security within a period of forty eight (48) hours, from the receipt of the notice and further directed to attach the above mentioned property in case of default. The said order was communicated to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bhadrachalam, by way of warrant returnable by 4-3-2005. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed against that order.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the plaintiff and defendant are non-triabls as the property is situated in the Scheduled area, the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem cannot order attachment before judgment in respect of the property situated in scheduled area. He placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in A.P. State Financial Corporation v. Paida Jogaiah, 2006 (3) ALD 627 = 2006 (2) ALT 13. In spite of service of notice, none appears for the respondents.

(3.) The warrant of attachment was addressed to Mandal Revenue Officer, Bhadrachalam, commanding him to call upon the petitioner to furnish third party security for an amount of Rs.75,000/- within forty eight (48) hours sufficient to satisfy the decree, that may likely to be passed against him or to appear before the Court and show-cause why security should not be furnished. The warrant also mentions that if the petitioner herein fails to furnish third party security, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall attach the petition schedule property, i.e., thatched house and appurtenant land of the petitioner. The question is whether the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem had such jurisdiction to attach the property in a scheduled area though the cause of action (as seen from the plaint) arose within the territorial limits of the learned trial Court. 2006(4) FR-F-43