THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2773 of 2009 DATE: 09.10.2009 Between: Gadde Ravi Kumar ……Petitioner Korlepara Bala Rama Murthy and another ……Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri L.Lakshmana Sarma Counsel for the Respondents: N.A. THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER: The petitioner/garnishee filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the docket order, dated 23.03.2009 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry in I.A.No.493 of 2008 in O.S.No.147 of 2008. The plaintiff/first respondent herein filed the above suit against the second respondent herein for the amounts due under a pronote. He filed the present Interlocutory Application seeking order of attachment before judgment against plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. The Court below, on 09.04.2008, issued notice to the second respondent under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 C.P.C calling upon him to furnish security equal to the value of the suit claim amount within 24 hours from the time of service of the notice, in default, plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties would be conditionally attached by issuing attachment order against plaint ‘A’ schedule and by issuing a pro-order against paint ‘B’ schedule amount lying with the garnishee. The petitioner-garnishee, who is a third party to the said suit, and who is the landlord of ‘B’ schedule property, filed a detailed counter stating that no amounts of the first respondent herein were lying with him and that the second respondent herein entered into lease agreement dated 09.01.2006 with regard to plaint-B schedule property with him on a monthly rent of Rs.20,000/- and that the vacant possession of the said premises was delivered to him on 05.04.2008, and therefore, he sought for dismissal of I.A. The Court below by the impugned docket order, dated 23.03.2009, passed the following order: “Attachment effected. The suit is coming for trial. Therefore, the attachment is made absolute.” In spite of service of notice on the first respondent/plaintiff, he has not chosen to put up appearance. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the entire material available on record. The impugned order is passed by the Court below without adjudicating the claims made by the petitioner herein and the same cannot be sustained since in the counter filed by the petitioner herein in the I.A it is specifically alleged that ‘B’ schedule property was leased out to the second respondent herein under lease deed dated 09.01.2006. Therefore, the Court below is under obligation to decide the same before making attachment absolute. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the Court below is directed to pass a reasoned order, after hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 09.10.2009 va