THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.643 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, “C.P.C.”), is filed against the order, dated 22.06.2009, in I.A.No.1431 of 2007 in O.S.No.357 of 2007, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, whereunder and whereby, the attachment of 1/3rd share of the appellant herein in the petition schedule property, which was already effected, was made absolute. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant contended that the trial Court has not followed the procedure as contemplated under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 C.P.C. and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contended that the appellant herein is trying to dispose of the property and therefore, the trial Court ordered for attachment of 1/3rd share of the appellant herein in the petition schedule property; that there are no grounds to interfere with the same and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 4. The respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of money against the appellant herein, and filed I.A.No.1431 of 2007, under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 C.P.C., for attachment of petition schedule property before judgment, wherein the impugned order is passed. When a party is about to dispose of the property or remove the property from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, so as to delay the execution of the decree that may be passed ultimately against the debtor, the Court, after giving opportunity to show-cause as to why he should not furnish security, can order attachment of the property. The appellant has not given any security for the amount due under the Promissory Note. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is disputing about the execution of the Promissory Note. That has to be decided in the suit itself. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the appellant indebted to several persons and if the attachment is raised, it would be difficult for the respondent to realize the amount under the decree that may be passed in favour of him. Even the appellant failed to furnish security. Admittedly, the appellant was having 1/3rd share in the petition schedule property, which was sought for attachment. The trial Court rightly ordered for attachment of the petition schedule property, only to the extent of share of the appellant. Hence, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J December 14, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.643 OF 2010 Between: Miss. Chukka Tripura Sundari .....APPELLANT AND Dandu Udaya Kumari ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.643 OF 2010 December 14, 2010