IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE K. S. APPA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.331 OF 2011 DATED:15.4.2011 Between: Ravipati Venkateswarlu … Appellant And Ganta Rajasekhar … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.331 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) The appeal is against the order of attachment dt.14.6.2010 passed by the Court of Principal District Judge, Nellore, in I.A. No.460 of 2009 in O.S. No.97 of 2009. The respondent herein is the plaintiff. He filed the suit in O.S. No.97 of 2009 before the Court below against the appellant herein for recovery of monies under three different promissory notes. Pending the suit, the respondent – plaintiff filed I.A. No.460 of 2009 seeking conditional attachment of the subject matter of the property contending that the appellant is indebted to many people and is intended to file an insolvency petition. As the appellant – defendant remained ex parte, initially conditional attachment was ordered on 10.9.2009. The appellant has not obeyed the said order. As the appellant was called absent even on 15.10.2009, he was set ex parte and directed for issuance of prohibitory order as per the conditional attachment order dt.10.9.2009. Subsequently, he has entered appearance and filed I.A. No.707 of 2009 for setting aside the ex parte order passed against him. Though the said application was allowed on 1.2.2010 setting aside the ex parte order dt.15.10.2009, but the conditional order of attachment dt.10.9.2009 has been continued. Later, the appellant filed counter contending inter alia that he is not indebted to anybody and never intended to move an insolvency petition and prayed to dismiss the I.A.No.460 of 2009 filed by the respondent for an order of conditional attachment. The Court below allowed the application and the conditional attachment order dt.10.9.2009 was made absolute. Hence, the present appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant – defendant submits that the Court below has no territorial jurisdiction to attach the properties in question, and that the respondent – plaintiff has failed to prove that the appellant intends to delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against the appellant by making attempts to dispose of the property from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the trial Court. He further submitted that the appellant is not indebted to the respondent and never intended to file insolvency petition and that the appellant is having immovable properties at Nellore and there is no necessity for him to dispose of the properties in question. The suit was filed on forged/fabricated promissory notes and the appellant never obtained loan from the respondent. The appellant filed C.C. No.477 of 2009 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khargone, Madhya Pradesh against the respondent and hence as a counter-blast to the same, the respondent filed the present suit with false averments. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent - plaintiff. He submits that the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant defendant have been answered by the Court below in detail and passed a reasoned order and hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Initially the Court below ordered conditional attachment on an application filed by the respondent – plaintiff on 10.9.2009, as the appellant was remained ex parte. As the appellant was called absent on 15.10.2009 also, he was set ex parte. The respondent did not respect the said order of the Court. He filed an application to set aside th e ex parte order. The said application was allowed by order dt.1.2.2010 and the order dt.15.10.2009 was set aside. However, the Court below, on consideration of the matter, by the impugned order dt.14.6.2010 observed that the respondent – plaintiff requested to furnish third party security for the suit amount and in the event of his failure to do so, then only he sought for the attachment of the property to the extent of the suit amount, and allowed I.A. No.460 of 2009 making absolute the conditional attachment ordered on 10.9.2009. It cannot be said that the Court below has no jurisdiction to attach the properties in question. It is stated that the appellant has properties in Nellore within the jurisdiction of the Court below. If such is the case, the appellant can bring the same for attachment before the trial Court and can provide third party security in Nellore within the jurisdiction of the Court below. The Court below, however, has to verify the pros and cons about the attachment of the properties of the appellant situated in Nellore so as to see that if a decree is passed it should not be frustrated. In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The C.M.A. is accordingly dismissed. However, it does not preclude the appellant for obtaining appropriate orders for providing third party security with regard to his properties in Nellore. No costs. ________________________ N.V. RAMANA, J ________________________ K.S. APPA RAO, J 15-4-2011 bnr