IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH (18TH) DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.757 of 2011 Between: D.Rajanna … Petitioner And: G Jayapal Reddy & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.757 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 25.11.2010 in IA No.867 of 2010 in OS No.420 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, wherein the said application filed under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC by the first respondent herein-plaintiff was allowed, directing the 2nd respondent herein-APSRTC to withhold a sum of Rs.4,04,000/- from the retirement benefits of the petitioner herein, subject to deduction of the statutory exemptions under Section 60 CPC, if the petitioner herein failed to furnish security by 29.11.2010. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. Perused the record. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-first defendant is that the impugned order is bad in law, as the same does not disclose any reasons, and secondly, the impugned order also does not record satisfaction of the existence of the conditions contemplated under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC for ordering attachment before judgment. 4. Order 38 Rule 5 CPC states that where the Court is satisfied that the defendant with an intent to obstruct or delay the execution of the decree that may be passed against him is about to dispose of the property or about to remove the property from the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court may direct the defendant either to furnish security or to appear and show cause why he should not furnish security. Of course sub-rule (3) enables the Court to direct the conditional attachment of the whole or any portion of the property so specified. However, sub-rule (4) declares that if an order of attachment is made without complying with the provisions of sub-rule (1), such attachment shall be void. 5. Before ordering attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5, it is therefore necessary that the Court should satisfy itself that the defendant with an intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against him, is about to dispose of the property or about to remove the property from the jurisdiction of the Court and such satisfaction shall be recorded in the order, directing attachment of the property. 6. In ‘Mandala Suryanarayana @ Babji v. Barla Babu Rao[1]’, the Division Bench of this Court held that ‘any order of attachment before judgment without giving reasons would be an illegal order’. 7. In the present case also, the impugned order does not disclose any reasons for directing attachment before judgment of the property, viz., a sum of Rs.4,04,000/- from the retirement benefits of the petitioner herein. In the absence of any reasons for ordering attachment and in the absence of any satisfaction of the existence of the conditions contemplated under Order 38 Rule 5(1) CPC for ordering attachment before judgment being reflected in the order, the impugned order is rendered unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. 8. In the circumstances, the impugned order is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. It is stated that the petitioner herein has already filed his counter in IA No.867 of 2010. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the IA No.867 of 2010 afresh on its own merits in accordance with law. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of as stated above. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 18.07.2011 bss [1] 2010(2) ALD 417 (DB)