THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:709 OF 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 18.11.2010, in I.A.No.727 of 2010 in O.S.No.14 of 2010 on the ﬁle of the learned II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, wherein the said application ﬁled by the petitioner herein-plaintiﬀ under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC seeking attachment before judgment of the house properties situate at Hyderabad and Saroornagar of Rangareddy District, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. Petitioner herein ﬁled the suit against the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs.15,50,000/- allegedly due from the defendant. Petitioner-plaintiﬀ ﬁled I.A.No.727 of 2010 under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC, seeking attachment before judgment of the house properties belonging to the defendant and situate at Hyderabad. In the aﬃdavit, ﬁled in support of the said application, petitioner alleged that the respondent is making eﬀorts to dispose of the properties. Except making a bald averment to that eﬀect in his aﬃdavit, petitioner has not furnished any details of any such proposed alienation of the properties by the defendant. Admittedly, petitioner has not ﬁled any third party aﬃdavit also in support of his allegation that the respondent is about to dispose of her property. The trial Court has noticed that the property was already mortgaged by the respondent in favour of a third party and there was no possibility of the respondent alienating the said property. The trial Court by the impugned order held that the petitioner has not placed any material to show that the respondent is trying to sell away the property. On the basis of a mere allegation made in the aﬃdavit, the attachment of the property has been ordered. The impugned order passed by the trial Court in due exercise of the discretion, does not call for any interference. However, petitioner is not precluded from renewing his request for attachment of the schedule property in the event of any genuine apprehension of alienation of the same by the respondent, by ﬁling a fresh application supported by necessary material. 4. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner as stated above. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 18th November, 2011. Tsy