THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1938 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against an order, dated 06.03.2009, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kavali, allowing the application in I.A.No.52 of 2009 in O.S.No.145 of 2008, filed under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking attachment before judgment of the schedule property of the defendant. Petitioner is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit. The plaintiff laid suit-O.S.No.145 of 2008 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kavali, for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note, purported to have been executed by the defendant. Thereafter, the present application had been filed by the plaintiff, under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C, seeking for attachment, of the schedule property of the defendant, before judgment. Along with the said application, he also filed affidavits of two independent persons. Though the defendant filed a counter denying the allegations made by the plaintiff, the trial Court after considering the entire material, allowed the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendant. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner- defendant strenuously contended that firstly, the ingredients of Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C. are not attracted for the purpose of ordering the said application by the trial Court; secondly, the counter filed by the defendant was not considered by the trial Court; and lastly, the defendant was not permitted to cross- examine the two independent persons who filed affidavits in support of the said application and therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff supported the impugned order, passed by the trial Court, and stated that no ground worth-a-name is made out in the Revision Petition calling for interference of this Court into the impugned order passed by the trial Court. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. At the outset, I am of the opinion that in the entire counter, except saying that no prima facie case is made out by the plaintiff for attachment of the schedule property of the defendant, before judgment, and there is no apprehension of alienation of the property by the defendant, nothing else has been stated. It is also not stated that the defendant is ready to furnish any third party security etc., in alternative to attachment of the property. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-defendant submitted that earlier, a Civil Revision Petition was filed, before this Court, stating that the very suit is not maintainable and while dismissing the said Civil Revision Petition, this Court directed the trial Court to take all objections that may be raised by the defendant into consideration while disposing of the suit. Under those circumstances, the trial Court without considering the preliminary objections taken by the defendant in the counter, ought not to have allowed the said application. He strenuously contended that promissory notes were obtained by the plaintiff form the defendant and no person with common sense would lend money without clearing the money lent under the first promissory note. I am afraid, I cannot agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-defendant. The present application is filed only for attachment of schedule property of the defendant before judgment. The trial Court has taken into consideration the affidavit filed by the third parties and prima facie came to the conclusion that the defendant is trying to alienate the property in question. Further, the defendant did not come forward to furnish any security etc. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error warranting interference of this Court. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU 10th February 2010 dr