M VENKAIAH NAIDU Vs. V NEELAVENAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st defendent in O.S.No. 31 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gudur (O.S. No. 6/89 on the file of the Vacation Ju ige, Nellore) is revision petitioner. The first respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money. In the said suit she filed I.A. No. 230/89 before the Vacation Judge, Nellore for attachment of the amount payable to the defendant No. 1 by the Superintending Engineer (R &B. Circle Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam) the 2nd respondent herein. On 2-5-89, the Vacation Civil Judge ordered attachment of the amount lying in deposit with the 2nd respondent. The validity of that order is assailed in this revision petition.

(2.) Sri M.V. Ramana Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the order under revision was passed in violation of the provisions of Order 38 Rule 5 CPC., and, therefore, the order suffers from the vice of material irregularity in exercising the jurisdiction by the Vacation Civil Judge. so it is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Sri S.R. Ashok, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, submits that had the notice been given under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of Order 38, the petitioner would have withdrawn the amount and the purpose of attachment would have been frustrated, so in the circumstances of the case, the vacation Judge was justified in passing the order in question.