THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.33 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.396 of 2009 in the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District for recovery of about Rs.11,00,000/- said to be due for the material supplied by him to the respondents. The petitioner also filed I.A.No.1324 of 2009 under 38 Rule 5 C.P.C. with a prayer to attach the movable properties mostly in the form of construction machinery. The trial Court ordered ad-interim attachment and issued notice to the respondents. A counter-affidavit was filed by the respondents stating that theirs is a company with vast financial commitments and assets and they do not have any intention to remove any property from the jurisdiction of the Court. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order, dated 10.11.2009. The same is challenged in this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner made an attempt to secure his interest in the event of the suit being decreed. The attachment of construction machinery was sought. That would naturally cripple the activities of the respondents. The trial Court took the view that the petitioner did not make out a case under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C. Across the Bar, the learned counsel for the respondents has stated that his clients do not intend to remove the construction machinery from the jurisdiction of the trial Court without its permission. Hence, the civil revision petition is partly allowed, modifying the order under revision to the effect that the respondents shall not remove the items of construction machinery mentioned in the petition schedule without specific permission of the Court. The trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit, as early as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:27.07.2010 kdl