THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4586 of 2009 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.8 of 2009 in the Court of the V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty against the petitioners for recovery of certain amount. He has also filed I.A.No.646 of 2009 under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C. with a prayer to direct attachment of an item of immovable property, before judgment. The petitioners resisted the I.A. by stating that they entered into an agreement with a third party on 30.03.2009 and that they are prepared to offer third party security for repayment of the suit amount, in case the suit is decreed. The trial Court allowed the I.A., through order, dated 16.09.2009. Hence, this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. The suit is filed on 17.08.2009 on the strength of a promissory note, dated 16.06.2009. In the application filed under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C. for attachment of an item of immovable property, the petitioners took a specific plea that they entered into an agreement with a third party on 30.03.2009. This, obviously, is much anterior to the date of promissory note, not to speak of the date of filing of the suit. In Adinarayana vs. S.Gafoor Sab[1], this Court has discussed at length the scope of Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C. and ultimately, held that the attachment before judgment cannot be ordered in respect of a property as regards which an agreement of sale exists prior to the date of filing of the suit. The ratio of the said judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case. To be fair to the respondent, the petitioners have offered to give third party security. Hence, the civil revision petition is allowed. The trial Court shall accept the third party security that may be offered by the petitioners for payment of the suit amount, in the event of it being decreed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:23.02.2010. kdl [1] 2004(2) ALT 780