IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5230 of 2003 Narendra Singh Khanduja son of Shri Metab Singh Khanduja VERSUS Smt. Satnam Kaur wife of late Shri Surendra Singh & Anr. Date Of Order ::: 03/03/2008. Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain J. Mr. Shailesh P. Sharma, Counsel for Defendant/Petitioner None present for the Plaintiff/Respondents BY THE COURT : Heard learned counsel for defendant/petitioner. Defendant-petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 26.08.2003 (Annexure-9) passed by the Additional District Judge No.3, Kota, in Civil Suit No.98/2003, whereby the said Court allowed the application filed by the plaintiff/ respondent no.1 Smt. Satnam Kaur, under Order 38 Rule 1 read with Rule 5, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and directed the defendant/petitioner to file a solvent security within a period of seven-days to the effect that he will make the payment of decreetal amount, as and when the suit is decreed. A notice to show cause was given to the respondent no.1, but no one is present on his behalf, in-spite of service of notice. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rupees one lac, which was taken as loan by the defendant. The defendant refused to pay the amount and gave threatening to the plaintiff to the effect that he will leave Kota itself after selling his house. On that basis an application was filed by the plaintiff under Order 38 Rule 1 read with Rule 5, C.P.C. for attachment of the house of the defendant before the final judgment is passed by the trial Court. The defendant contested the said application stating therein that the disputed house is already mortgaged with the Kota Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited, Kota against loan amount of Rs.4,50,000/-, therefore, the same is not in his possession and it will not be proper to attach the house without hearing the Bank. The trial Court after considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties did not pass any order of attachment of the disputed house, but directed the defendant to furnish a solvent security to the effect that he will pay the decreetal amount, as and when the suit is decreed. The defendant was directed to furnish the security within a period of seven-days, failing which the Court directed to issue the attachment warrant of the disputed house. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition. It is relevant to mention here that no interim stay order was granted by this Court and the stay application was dismissed on 22.10.2007. Counsel for the petitioner sought time from time to time to seek instructions in the matter and let this Court know as to whether the suit is still pending in the trial Court or not, but till date the said information has not been furnished so far. I have examined the impugned order dated 26.08.2003 and I do not find any legal error in it so as to invoke extra- ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. ashok/ I.No.49