THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO. C.R.P.No. 5762 of 2010. ORDER: I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent though notice was served. This revision petition is filed against the order dt.18.11.2010 Passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili in I.A.No. 402 of 2010 in O.S.No. 53 of 2010 whereby the learned Senior Civil Judge ordered attachment of the schedule property before Judgment. The respondent herein filed the above suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.7,63,700/- against the revision petitioner/defendant. In the suit, he filed I.A.No. 402 of 2010 for attachment of the schedule property before judgment on the ground that the revision petitioner is trying to alienate the same with a view to defraud his creditors. The revision petitioner filed counter contending that without issuing any notice and without affording any opportunity to furnish an undertaking, the court below ordered for attachment of schedule property worth Rs. 30,00,000/- as against the due amount of Rs. 7,63,700/-. The court below placed reliance on 3rd party affidavits filed by the respondent and also took into consideration the fact that the respondent (revision petitioner herein) did not furnish any undertaking before the court. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the revision petitioner was not asked by the court below to furnish any undertaking stating that he is not going to alienate the property. Further more, the 3rd party affidavits do not contain any details about the alienation by the revision petitioner and in the absence of any details regarding alienation of the schedule property, the court below ought not to have considered the 3rd party affidavits filed by the respondent. Mere assertion that the revision petitioner is going to alienate the schedule property is not sufficient to attach the property having recourse to the provisions of Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C. A party seeking attachment of property before judgment has to furnish full particulars regarding alienation of property which has been in contemplation of the opposite party. In the circumstances, the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge is not valid in the eye of law and therefore the same is accordingly set aside. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed setting aside the order dt. 18.11.2010 in I.A.No. 402 of 2010 in O.S.No. 53 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili. However, the revision petitioner shall file an undertaking before the court below stating that he would not sell the schedule property without the leave of the court. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 28.1.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO. C.R.P.No. 5762 of 2010. ORDER 28.1.2011.