VANTARU CHINNA SUBBA RAYUDU Vs. Y LALITHA VANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner aggrieved by an order made in I. A. No. 93/2008 in O. S. No. 34/2008 on the file of the Vacation civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad whereunder the petitioner was given notice with a further direction to furnish security for a sum of Rs. 12,32,000/-within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of notice, to produce and place at the disposal of the Court when required the entire property mentioned in the schedule hereunder sufficient to satisfy the decree that may be passed in favour of the petitioner - plaintiff. The respondent herein - the plaintiff in the suit instituted the suit for recovery of money and also filed an application i. A. No. 93/2008 in O. S. No. 34/08 on the file of the Vacation Civil Judge, City civil Court, Hyderabad under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for conditional attachment. The certified copy of the third party affidavit of B. V. Ramana Rao is placed before this Court and no doubt it is shown as O. S. No. 274/2008 in the said third party affidavit. But, however, it is shown as in the Court of the Hon'ble Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

(2.) THIS Court on 21-5-2008 while admitting the Civil Revision Petition, in c. R. P. M. P. No. 2734/2008 made the following Order:-

(3.) SRI R. Prabhakar representing Sri Venkatadri, the learned Counsel representing revision petitioner, in all thoroughness had taken this Court through several factual controversies and also under what circumstances the promissory note in question dt. 18-5-2005 came into existence and how the same cannot be enforced. Incidentally, the learned Counsel also would maintain that none of the ingredients of Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been satisfied. Further, the learned Counsel also had pointed out that for reasons best known, conveniently the Vacation Civil Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad had been chosen for instituting the suit though this Court has no jurisdiction at all to entertain the suit, even in the light of the averments made in the plaint, either on the ground of cause of action or on the ground of the execution of the promissory note as well. The Counsel also would maintain that this third party affidavit initially had not been filed along with the suit but the same had been filed subsequent thereto and it is an after thought, in such a matter making an order directing the revision petitioner to furnish security, no doubt, while issuing notice may not be just and proper, it would have been just and proper on the part of the learned Judge to issue notice giving sufficient opportunity to explain his stand and to make an appropriate order in this regard in the light of the peculiar facts. The learned Counsel also relied on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions.