J BALAJI Vs. EARLADINNE VENKATASWARALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Court ordered notice before admission on 24. 10. 2008 and granted interim stay for a limited period which is being extended from time to time. Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy entered appearance on behalf of the respondent in the civil revision petition.

(2.) SRI P. Veera Reddy, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner, would maintain that the order under challenge in the present C. R. P. cannot be sustained for the reason that an order of attachment before judgment with a direction to furnish security had been granted without considering the merits and demerits of the application in proper perspective. The Counsel also would point out that there is absolutely no basis for the plaintiff to allege that the defendant is disposing of the property. The counsel also would maintain that there is ample material which would go to show that the revision petitioner is an affluent person having number of properties and has been running profit making business and absolutely there is no necessity for him to dispose of the property. The learned Counsel also would further maintain that this application had been thought off only with a view to humiliate the revision petitioner-defendant in the suit and if the interest of the respondent-plaintiff to be safeguarded the revision petitioner-defendant is ready and willing to furnish an undertaking not to alienate his properties. The Counsel also had taken this Court through the reasons which had been recorded by the learned additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, and further would maintain that even in the light of the order made in CRP No. 2914 of 2008 by this Court the impugned order being unsustainable, the same is liable to be set aside. The Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions.

(3.) ON the contrary, Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned Counsel representing the respondent-plaintiff would maintain that it is true that in CRP no. 2914 of 2008 filed by a different plaintiff as revision petitioner, in view of the changed circumstances liberty was given to the said petitioner to move appropriate application, if he is so advised and accordingly the C. R. P. , was disposed of. The Counsel, however, would maintain that in the present case specifically it was averred in the affidavit filed in support of the application that the revision petitioner-respondent-defendant is indebted to many creditors and to the knowledge of the plaintiff there are no valuable properties standing in his name except the petition schedule property. The counsel also had taken this Court through the averments made in the counter and further would point out that in the present case the third party affidavit of one viswanadham also had been filed which had been specifically referred to. The Counsel also would maintain the fact that certain other suits are pending also is not in controversy and this aspect also had been taken into consideration by the learned additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool and hence in the light of the reasons recorded by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, kurnool, this is not a fit matter to be interfered with.