THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3049 OF 2008 DATED: 28-02-2011 Between: G.Sunitha. .... PETITIONER And Nallamada Gopala Krishna. .... RESPONDENT ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 11.07.2008, in I.A.No.476 of 2008 in O.S.No.198 of 2008 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, whereunder notice was issued to the petitioner-2nd defendant to show cause as to why the attachment over the schedule property, which is being attached, should not be made absolute and further restraining the defendants from transferring or charging the properties by way of sale, gift or otherwise. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. Respondent herein filed the suit against the petitioner for recovery of money, allegedly due from the 1st defendant. Petitioner-2nd defendant is stated to be a guarantor and wife of the 1st defendant. Respondent- plaintiff filed I.A.No.476 of 2008 under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC for attachment of certain immovable properties mentioned in the schedule of the petition. The trial Court by the impugned order, while issuing notice to the petitioner-2nd defendant, directed her to show cause as to why the attachment should not be made absolute and also restrain the petitioner-2nd defendant from alienating the property. The application is filed under Order XXXVII Rule 5 CPC for attachment. The question of granting any injunction in such an application does not arise. Further, when there was no attachment effected, the question of making it absolute also does not arise. The impugned order is therefore treated to be only a notice issued under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC, directing the petitioner-2nd defendant to show cause why the property mentioned in the schedule shall not be attached. Before ordering the attachment also, the Court has to necessarily give an opportunity to furnish security and in the event of the plaintiff failing to furnish security, attachment of the property has to be considered. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the property does not belong to the petitioner-2nd defendant and it belongs to the father of the petitioner. 5. It is open to the petitioner-2nd defendant to file a counter in I.A.No.476 of 2008 and raise all such pleas as are available under law and oppose the application for the attachment. The trial Court shall dispose of the petition on its own merits after giving opportunity of hearing to both sides. 6. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Interim stay granted on 25-07-2008 stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 28th February, 2011. Tsy