THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.742 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.193 of 2009 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, against the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-. He also filed I.A.No.2029 of 2009 under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C. with a prayer to attach before judgment, an item of immovable property viz., house bearing No.7/60, D2-F, Railway Station Road, Rajampet Nagarapanchayat, Kadapa District. The trial Court directed issuance of show cause notice to the respondent on 16.11.2009. The respondent has thereafter entered appearance on 23.01.2010 and the matter was posted to 23.02.2010. The petitioner contends that once the respondent entered appearance, the trial Court ought to have insisted on furnishing security and in default, it ought to have attached the property. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of Rule 5 of Order 38 C.P.C. discloses that two options are open to a trial Court, whenever an application under that provision is filed. The first is to straight away require the defendant to furnish security for the amount involved, and the second alternative is to issue show cause notice to the defendant to explain as to why the property in question be not attached. In the instant case, the trial Court has chosen the second option. The mere service of show cause notice does not entail in requiring the defendant to furnish security, much less attachment of the property. He has to be given an opportunity to show cause in the form of an affidavit. It is only when the Court is not satisfied with the explanation offered by the defendant, that it can require him to either furnish security or attach the property. It is not as if there was undue delay in the matter. After the notice was served, the respondents entered appearance and the Court gave one opportunity to him to file counter affidavit. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court has deviated from the prescribed procedure. Therefore, the civil revision petition is dismissed. It is however directed that the trial Court shall pass appropriate orders in the I.A. without any further delay. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 04.03.2010 JSU