THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 2230 of 2009 O r d e r: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 17.04.2009, passed by the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in I.A. No. 2265 of 2008 in I.A. No. 1438 of 2005 in O.S. No. 223 of 2005, directing issuance of arrest warrant against the petitioner-defendant No.1 to appear before the Court and submit his explanation as to why he should not furnish security for the suit amount, failing which he will be committed to civil prison. The learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant No.1 submits that the petitioner-defendant No.1 is not the owner of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property belongs to defendant No.2 (died), and since it is the allegation of respondent No.1-plaintiff that the petitioner-defendant No.1 sold some of the plots in the suit schedule property to third parties as GPA holder of defendant No.2, in violation of the order of attachment dated 02.11.2005 passed in I.A. No.1438 of 2005, the remedy of respondent No.1-plaintiff is to initiate contempt proceedings against the original owner, but not to file an application under the provisions of Order XXXVIII Rule 1 C.P.C., which is not maintainable against the petitioner-defendant No.1. Hence she thus submitted that the order under revision, passed by the Court below, directing issuance of arrest warrant against the petitioner-defendant No.1, is illegal and liable to be set aside, and accordingly prayed that the order under revision be set aside and the C.R.P. be allowed. This Court by order dated 01.06.2009, while ordering notice before admission, stayed the warrant of arrest against the petitioner- defendant No.1, subject to the condition of the petitioner-defendant No.1 furnishing security to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-. To set aside the stay order, respondent No.1-plaintiff filed affidavit opposing the stand taken by the petitioner herein. The learned counsel for respondent No.1-plaintiff submitted that there is no denial by the petitioner-defendant No.1 that he has not sold some of the plots in the suit schedule property to third parties. On the other hand, it is his admitted case that he sold some plots in the suit schedule property to third parties, and in fact, the sale deeds Exs. A1 to A3, clearly evidence that the petitioner-defendant No.1 as GPA holder of defendant No.2-original owner, in violation of the orders of attachment dated 02.11.2005 passed in I.A. No. 1438 of 2005, had sold some of the plots in the suit schedule property to third parties, defeating the interest of respondent No.1-plaintiff, to recover the amounts. The learned counsel for respondent No.1-plaintiff further pointing to the provisions of Section 64 C.P.C., submitted that once the suit schedule property is attached, the same cannot be sold and, any alienation in violation of the orders of attachment is void. Inasmuch as the petitioner-defendant No.1, in violation of the orders of attachment, sold the suit schedule property, the Court below had passed the order under revision, directing issuance of arrest warrant against the petitioner-defendant No.1, directing him to appear and furnish security. He further submitted that even though the petitioner-defendant No.1 furnished the cash security as ordered by this Court, the same can never inure to the benefit of respondent No.1-plaintiff. Hence, he justified the order under revision and prayed for dismissal of the C.R.P. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent No.1-plaintiff and perused the order under revision. There is no doubt that the petitioner-defendant No.1 is not the original owner of the suit schedule property and that the original owner of the suit schedule property is defendant No.2. Though it is contended that after the death of defendant No.2-original owner, his L.Rs. were not brought on record, but the fact remains, it is not known when defendant No.2-original owner died and whether the factum of death of defendant No.2-original owner was brought to the notice of the Court below. However, the fact remains, when the order under revision was passed, petitioner was shown as defendant No.1, and in fact, the order under revision was passed only against the petitioner- defendant No.1, inasmuch as defendant No.2 was shown as not a necessary party. Admittedly, the Court below passed orders of attachment dated 02.11.2005 in I.A. No. 1438 of 2005, attaching Plot Nos. 24, 30, 31, 40, 52 to 57, 96, 109 to 113 and 129 in Sy. No. 38/A of Old Bowenpally and also house property situated on Alexander Road, Secunderabad, against the petitioner-defendant No.1 also. However, as the petitioner- defendant No.1 in violation of the orders of attachment, vide sale deeds Exs. A1 to A3, is said to have sold three plots which are under attachment to third parties, the petitioner-defendant No.1 filed the present application under Order XXXVIII Rule 1 C.P.C. The Court below upon perusing the sale deeds found that vide Ex. A1-sale deed, the petitioner-defendant No.1 as GPA holder of defendant No.2 sold Plot No. 30 in favour of one Lalitha, and though the sale deeds Exs. A2 and A3, do not reflect that alienation was made by the petitioner-defendant No.1 as GPA holder of defendant No.2, the Court below found that since the petitioner-defendant No.1 failed to furnish third party security as ordered by order dated 24.08.2005 and in violation of the orders of attachment dated 02.11.2005 passed in I.A. No. 1438 of 2005, had alienated some of the plots that are under attachment, and having regard to the provisions of Order XXXVIII Rule 1(b) C.P.C. felt it appropriate to issue warrant of arrest against the petitioner-defendant No.1 for his appearance and to show cause why he could not furnish the security for the suit amount. Having felt so, the Court below passed the order under revision, directing issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner-defendant No.1 to appear before the Court to submit his explanation as to why he should not furnish security for the suit amount, failing which he will be committed to civil prison under the provisions of Order XXXVIII Rule 4 C.P.C., and I find no reason whatsoever to interfere there with in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit in the C.R.P., and the same is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner, however, is at liberty to take all the defences that are available to him under law. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 27th January, 2010 KSR