THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4028 OF 2011 Date: 11-11-2011 Between Challapalli Yohan …..Petitioner And Manne Venkata Subrahmanyam …..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4028 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner – judgment debtor filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to revise the order dated 26-07-2011 passed by the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in I.A No.792 of 2011 in O.S No. 731 of 2011, whereby the learned Judge allowed the petition filed by the respondent – decree holder under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC for attaching his retirement benefits subject to Section 60 of CPC. The suit O.S No. 731 of 2011 was filed by the respondent – plaintiff for recovery of the amounts due based on a pronote. He also filed I.A No. 729 of 2011 to attach the retirement benefits of the petitioner herein. It is not disputed that though the petitioner lodged a caveat under Section 148A of CPC stating that the plaintiff is likely to proceed against him and his immovable properties, he has not given any schedule as contemplated under Rule 294 (2) of the Civil Rules of Practice, along with caveat. But, in the caveat he has specifically mentioned that the respondent – plaintiff is likely to obtain attachment against his immovable properties. The petitioner has not stated about the likelihood of the respondent – decree holder attaching the retirement benefits in the caveat. The lower Court observed that the pro-order was issued subject to Section 60 of CPC asking him to show cause as to why attachment order cannot be made as sought for by the respondent – plaintiff in the interlocutory application. As the petitioner failed to respond, the same was allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since such a show cause notice has not been received by the petitioner, there is no cause for him to contest the matter. The said plea was not taken by him before the Court below. No doubt, the Supreme Court in Mahadev Govind Gharge v. LAO[1] held that in terms of Section 148A CPC a caveator has a right to be heard mandatorily for the purposes of passing of an interlocutory order. The law also contemplates that the caveator is to be heard by the Court before any interim order is passed against him. In the present case, as seen from the impugned order, though it is alleged that the petitioner has not received the show cause notice, the interlocutory application was ordered on hearing the petitioner only. In view of the same, there is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the lower Court. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file an application to raise the attachment, if he is so advised. A. GOPAL REDDY, J 11-11-2011 ks [1] (2011) 6 SCC 321