THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU C.M.A.Nos.144 and 212 of 2010 Date: 19-4-2010 C.M.A.No.144 of 2010: Between M.Mohan Reddy Engineering Contractors, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Sole proprietor Sri M.Mohan Reddy, Died per L.Rs., Mrs. M.Pratima Reddy and 3 others … Appellants/Respondents/Defendants and Sri Ch.Purnachandra Rao … Respondent/Petitioner/plaintiff C.M.A.No.212 of 2010: Between M.Mohan Reddy Engineering Contractors, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Sole proprietor Sri M.Mohan Reddy, Died per L.Rs., Mrs. M.Pratima Reddy and 3 others … Appellants/Respondents/Defendants and Sri Ch.Purnachandra Rao … Respondent/Petitioner/plaintiff THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU C.M.A.Nos.144 and 212 of 2010 Oral Common Judgment: (per D.S.R.Varma, J.) Heard the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel Sri E.Manohar appearing for the respondent/plaintiff and also the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants. 2. These two appeals arise out of the same cause of action, hence they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Of course, there is a dispute with regard to the maintainability of these appeals against the order dated 09-02- 2010 in I.A.No.791 of 2010 in O.S.No.74 of 2010 passed by the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of CPC. We perceive, there is, in fact, something more than what is actually meets an eye, but this court is not inquisitive to know or to probe into all those minute details, inasmuch as, they are totally irrelevant. 4. However, the only question that remains for consideration, in our considered view, apart from the question of maintainability, is as to whether the impugned order passed by the trial court under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of CPC is rationale on the face of it or not ? 5. If we are to go into that question, again we may have to delve deep into the merits and background of the case, which exercise also we do not propose to take upon. 6. On the last occasion, when this court, with a view not to disturb or disrupt the dignity and decency of both the parties in all respects, advised the appellants/defendants to give an undertaking so as to enable this court to record the same and to that effect, the suit claim would be deposited immediately soon after the suit is decreed, of course, subject to their right of appeal, which cannot be taken away. 7. Pursuant to the said advice, today an undertaking has been filed by the appellants, which reads as under: “That we shall deposit the entire decretal amount with costs within a period of 15 days from the date of the decree if and when passed in O.S.No.74 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad notwithstanding our right to appeal against the said decree and this undertaking shall be subject to the orders that may be passed by the appellate court if we prefer first appeal against the said decree.” 8. However, the learned Senior Counsel Sri E.Manohar expressed the view that the said undertaking is not sufficient and the same would not result positively in any eventuality. 9. Having regard to the other aspects, which have been discussed elaborately, including that of the maintainability of the appeals etc., in order to give a quietus, we propose to dispose of these appeal which arise virtually of a single order. Keeping that in mind and having regard to the status of both the parties, the impugned order of attachment is modified confining the order of attachment passed under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of CPC to the limited extent of Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees sixteen lakhs only). 10. We consider the above undertaking as extracted above, which shall form part of the common judgment and decrees in these appeals, would take care of the situation in future. 11. With the above modification, the appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs. ________________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ________________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU 19th April, 2010. Note:- Issue c.c. by tomorrow (20-4-2010). (B/o) Ak THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU C.M.A.Nos.144 and 212 of 2010 (Common Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by DSRV, J.) 19th April, 2010. (Ak)