Civil Revision No.6161 of 2010(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.6161 of 2010(O&M) Decided on : February 15, 2011 Sroop Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS Rattan Singh ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vikas Behl & Ms.Tina Garg, Advocates for the respondent. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This petition assails the order dated 3.8.2010, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Balachaur, whereby, the court directed the petitioner – defendant (herein referred as `the petitioner') to furnish security (in a suit for recovery of Rs.8,00,000/-) to the tune of Rs.8 lacs, failing which, his land was to be attached, and decided the application under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 accordingly. The petitioner has assailed the order on the ground that no property could be attached in the alternative when the order for furnishing security has been passed. In this regard, he has placed reliance over the judgment of this Court in case Harvinder Singh vs. Sarwan Singh and Civil Revision No.6161 of 2010(O&M) [ 2 ] another, 2008(3) RCR(Civil) 543. Having heard the rival contentions and perused the records, I do not find any merit in the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, while disposing of the application under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC, the petitioner was directed to furnish the security to the tune of Rs.8 lacs, failing which his land was to be attached. There is no denying a fact that the petitioner did not comply with the order. Therefore, after the given time, the Trial Court proceeded to attach his property. The necessary condition for invocation of Order 38 Rule 5 CPC was the satisfaction of the Court. If the Court satisfies itself that the petitioner with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against him, (a) is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property, or (b) is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. On perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Trial Court after discussing the contents of the application, affidavit as also after taking into consideration the other circumstances of the case, has specifically recorded that the petitioner is threatening to alienate his property just to defeat the legal rights of the respondent and if decree is passed during the pendency of the suit, then it would be difficult for the respondent to recover the amount in the execution proceedings. It was further observed that the petitioner could delay the execution in this manner. Therefore, no exception to the opinion made by the Trial Court directing the petitioner to furnish security could be made. Civil Revision No.6161 of 2010(O&M) [ 3 ] As regards the second contention that the attachment of the property could not be ordered in the alternative in view of the judgment delivered in case of Harvinder Singh (supra). Having gone through the judgment, it would be suffice to say that the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the cited case, the petitioner was directed to furnish security or in alternative to attach the property, but in the case in hand, no order in the alternative was passed, but the property was to be attached, if the petitioner failed to furnish the security and the property was not attached under the same order, by which he was directed to furnish the security. The impugned order is quite in consonance with the Order 38 Rule 6 CPC, which clearly envisages and provides for attachment of the property, and it reads as under:- “O.38.R.6: Attachment where cause not shown or security not furnished.- (1) Where the defendant fails to show cause why he should not furnish security, or fails to furnish the security required, within the time fixed by the Court, the Court may order that the property specified, or such portion thereof as appears sufficient to satisfy any decree which may be passed in the suit, be attached. (2) Where the defendant shows such cause or furnishes the required security, and the property specified or any portion of it has been attached, the Court shall order the attachment to be withdrawn, or make such other order as it thinks fit.” In the instant case, after notice for furnishing show cause to the Civil Revision No.6161 of 2010(O&M) [ 4 ] petitioner, as to why he be not asked to furnish the security, and after giving him full opportunity of being heard, directed him to furnish the security. Admittedly, he failed to furnish the security and he also failed to show cause as to why he did not furnish the security, therefore, the Court vide a separate order attached the property. Further, the petitioner also did not apply to the Trial Court to explain for withdrawal of the attachment, which was the requirement of sub-Rule (2) of Order 38 Rule 6 CPC. Thus, finding no fault with the impugned order, the petition is dismissed. February 15, 2011 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE