IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2487 OF 2011 Between : T.Sreenivasa Rao ... APPELLANT A N D Mr.Rama Rao Sreeramaneni and others. … RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2487 OF 2011 ORDER The respondent filed O.S.No.49 of 2011 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool against the petitioner herein for recovery of amount in the suit, he has also filed I.A.No.151 of 2011 under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 C.P.C for attachment of the schedule property mentioned therein. Through its order, dated 29.06.2011, the trial Court required the petitioner to furnish third party security to the extent of suit amount i.e, Rs.16,38,110/- within 48 hours from the date of receipt of notice. It was mentioned that if the petitioner failed to furnish the security, the property mentioned in the petition schedule would stand attached. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though notice was served upon the respondent, he has not chosen to enter appearance. 3. The allegation of the petitioner that the trail Court straightaway issued notice requiring the petitioner to furnish the security remains unrebutted. Once the trial Court has chosen to issue a show cause notice, it ought to have waited till the petitioner furnishes the security. The impugned notice ought not to have been issued. 4. Order XXXVIII Rule 1 CPC reads as follows: “where defendant may be called upon to furnish security for appearance- Where at any stage of a suit, other than a suit of the nature referred to in section 16, clauses (a) to (d), the Court is satisfied, by affidavit or otherwise. a) that the defendant, with intent to delay the plaintiff, or to avoid any process of the Court or to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against him, i) has absconded or left the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, or ii) is about to abscond or leave the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, or iii) has disposed of or removed from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court his property or any part thereof, or b) that the defendant is about to leave (India) under circumstances affording reasonable probability that the plaintiff will or may thereby be obstructed or delayed in the execution of any decree that may be passed against the defendant in the suit, the Court may issue a warrant to arrest the defendant and bring him before the Court to show cause why he should not furnish security for his appearance. Provided that the defendant shall not be arrested if he pays to the officer entrusted with the execution of the warrant any sum specified in the warrant as sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff’s claim; and such sum shall be held in deposit by the Court until the suit is disposed of or until the further order of the Court.” The above procedure had been completely over looked by the trail Court. 5. On this short ground, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is left open to the trial Court to pass orders in I.A.No.151 of 2011 in O.S.No.49 of 2011 in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C.BHANU. J AUGUST, 23 2011. YVL