HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5693 of 2010 Date of Order:24.01.2011 Between: S.Motilal Jain ..Petitioner and D.Chandrakala. ..Respondent The Court made the following Order: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5693 of 2010 ORDER :- Respondent filed O.S.No.432 of 2010 in the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kurnool against the petitioner for recovery of certain amount. He has also filed I.A.No.974 of 2010 in O.S.No.432 of 2010 under Order XXXVIII Rule 1 CPC. Through its order, dated 08.10.2010, the trial court issued notice to the petitioner requiring him to furnish security for the suit amount by the next date of hearing or to explain as to why he be not required to furnish the security. Simultaneously an order directing the petitioner to furnish security to the extent of the suit amount within 48 hours, was passed. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. Sri Chilamkuri Hanumantha Rayudu, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court can order attachment before judgment only when a defendant in the suit fails to explain and in the instant case the attachment was ordered straight away. Sri Murali Lincoln, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the court exercises the power under sub-Rule 3 of Rule 1 of Order XXXVIII CPC and that no exception can be taken to it. Whenever an application under Order XXXVIII rule 1 CPC is filed, the trial court normally requires the defendant in the suit to furnish the security for the suit amount or to explain as to why such an order be not passed, by the next date of hearing. If the facts pleaded by the plaintiff are such that the defendant is likely to part with the property before the service of notice or next date of hearing, it can exercise power under sub-Rule 3 namely pass an order of conditional attachment. It is conditional because the attachment is liable to be revoked in case the defendant is able to show cause as to why it is not necessary to furnish any security at all or that the allegation as to the alienation of the property by him is untenable. A Division Bench of this Court in Yenamala Chandra Reddy v. Nuvvula Chandramouli Naidu[1] held that the civil Court is conferred with the power to pass an order of conditional attachment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5(1)(3) of C.P.C., while issuing notice under Rule 5(1). Therefore, no exception can be taken to the order under revision. While issuing notice before admission this Court suspended the order under revision. A condition was incorporated to the effect that the petitioner shall not either alienate or encumber the petition schedule property. The same arrangement will continue till the trial Court dispose of the I.A. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J January 24, 2011 Lmv [1] 1991(II) ALT 343