THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5034 of 2010 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.452 of 2010 in the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool against the petitioner for recovery of amount. He has also filed I.A.No.1050 of 2010 under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C. Through its order, dated 29.10.2010, the trial Court required the petitioner to furnish third party security to the extent of suit amount i.e. Rs.3,05,426/- within 72 hours. It was mentioned that if the petitioner fails to furnish the security, the property mentioned in the petition schedule would stand attached. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though notice was served upon the respondent, he has not chosen to enter appearance. The allegation of the petitioner that he was straightaway required to furnish the security remains unrebutted. Once the trial Court has chosen to issue notice, it ought to have waited till the petitioner submitted his explanation as to why he be not required to furnish the security. Such a direction cannot be issued straightaway along with the notice. 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.1050 of 2010 in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:18.03.2011. kdl