THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO C.R.P.No. 3678 OF 2011 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the orders passed in I.A.No. 524 of 2011 moved in I.A.No. 185 of 2010 in O.S.No. 4 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-Additional District Judge at Khammam. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in the suit. The 1st defendant’s husband, while he was alive, seems to have carried on certain business relations with the plaintiffs. When he died, the plaintiffs have brought about the suit seeking for recovery of amount of Rs. 17,23,543/-. To secure their interests, they have moved I.A.No. 185 of 2010 and made an attempt to get three items of the properties belonging to the 1st defendant attached before judgment. The 1st defendant in the suit gave an undertaking to the Court that she will not alienate or create any charge on items 1,2 and 3 of the schedule properties. However, the 1st defendant, the wife of the principal borrower, has moved I.A.No. 524 of 2011 for raising the attachment insofar as items 1 and 3 of the schedule properties are concerned and to maintain the undertaking, which she furnished in respect of item No.2 of the schedule property. The 1st defendant has demonstrated that item No.3 was, in fact, earlier attached by Karur Vysya Bank and to get that attachment raised, she had to take various measures and with difficulty, liquidated the liability of Karur Vysya Bank and got the attachment of item No.3 of the schedule raised. Subsequently, she entered into a sale transaction with regard to item No.3. The case of the 1st defendant is that the value of item No.2 of the schedule is more than Rs. 22 lacs, which is beyond the suit claim itself and therefore, the interests of the plaintiffs are adequately protected, by attaching or confining the attachment only to item No.2 of the schedule and releasing or raising the attachment insofar as items 1 and 3 are concerned. Accepting the plea of the 1st defendant, I.A.No. 524 of 2011 has been allowed by the Court. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously submits that the interests of the plaintiffs will suffer a jeopardy, if the undertaking furnished by the 1st defendant in the suit is not maintained, even in respect of item 1 of the schedule, I do not see any justifiable reason to accept the said contention. Item 2 of the schedule comprises of land and polishing machinery of granite standing thereon. Therefore, the Court below has exercised the jurisdiction correctly and properly in allowing I.A.No. 524 of 2011. I do not find any error of jurisdiction exercised in the matter, requiring the revisionary jurisdiction to be exercised by me. However, it is made clear that the 1st respondent herein who is the 1st defendant in the suit shall not create any charge on item 2 of the schedule through out the pendency of the suit. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage, but however, without costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 19th September 2011 ksld