HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.813 of 2010 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.29 of 2009 initially in the Court of the Principal District Judge, kadapa, against the petitioners for recovery of a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest. She also filed an application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 C.P.C. with a prayer to direct attachment before judgment of the properties mentioned in the I.A. The trial Court ordered notice. The petitioners entered appearance. It is stated that a memo was filed into the Court stating that the parties as well as their counsel received threatening calls. The learned Principal District Judge made over the suit to the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Kadapa. After transfer, said application was numbered as I.A.No.193 of 2010. The petitioners filed a counter-affidavit in the I.A. and written statement in the suit. Through its order dated 24.02.2010, the trial Court required the petitioners to furnish security within 48 hours. The same is challenged in this revision. Heard Sri B.S. Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the respondent. The remedy provided for under Rule 5 of Order XXXVIII C.P.C. is premature in nature. The party claiming the relief under that provision must satisfy the trial Court that there is imminent threat that the defendant is taking away the properties from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, or that he is trying to alienate the same, or is attempting to leave the place. The necessary adjudication in this regard has to be undertaken soon after the defendant files the counter in the I.A. or the written statement in the suit, as the case may be. Once the pleadings are complete, the Court has to undertake adjudication on merits. An order requiring the defendant to furnish security can be passed only when the defendant fails to explain. In the instant case, soon after receiving notice, the petitioners herein not only filed the counter in I.A. but also filed the written statement. They disputed the contents of the plaint and they denied their liability. They have also refuted the contention of the respondent that they are likely to sell away the properties. None of these contentions were discussed by the trial Court. A perusal of the order under revision resembles that of an ex parte order, which is passed while issuing notices when no response is forthcoming. There was a clear lapse on the part of the trial Court in observing the principles underlying under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 C.P.C. The petitioners undertake not to alienate the suit schedule properties. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Order under revision dated 24.02.2010 in I.A.No.193 of 2010 in O.S.No.29 of 2009 is set aside. It is, however, directed that the petitioners shall not alienate the properties mentioned in the I.A. pending disposal of the suit. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 22nd June, 2010 SKM/GHN