THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2885 OF 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 15.07.2011, in I.A.No.2318 of 2011 in O.S.No.458 of 2011 on the file of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the respondent herein-plaintiff under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC for attachment before judgment of the schedule property, belonging to the petitioner herein- defendant, was ordered, directing the petitioner herein to furnish immovable property security or such security to the satisfaction of the Court for the suit amount and costs within 72 hours and on failure to furnish the security the schedule property be attached according to the procedure established by law and further directing that in the meanwhile there shall be conditional attachment of the petition schedule property. 2. The impugned order shows that the same was passed following the precedents in YENAMALA CHANDRA REDDY v. NUVVALA CHANDRAMOULI NAIDU AND OTHERS[1] and AJAY AGARWAL AND OTHER v. NAGARJUNA FINANCE LIMITED [2]. 3. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 4. Respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of Rs.2,79,71,550/- towards rents from the petitioner-defendant pending disposal of the suit. Respondent-plaintiff sought attachment of the schedule property, which comprises printing machinery belonging to the petitioner-defendant. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant would mainly contend that no opportunity was given to the petitioner before directing the attachment of the property. 6. It can be seen from the impugned order that the petitioner- defendant was directed to furnish the immovable property security for the said amount and costs within 72 hours and only on failure to furnish security the attachment of the property was ordered. The interim conditional attachment of the property was also directed in the impugned order, which is contemplated under the provisions of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC. 7. Under Sub-Rule 1 of Order XXXVIII CPC, the Court is empowered to direct the defendant to furnish the security within the time to be fixed by it or to appear and show cause why he should not furnish security. In the present case, the trial Court has, while directing the petitioner-defendant to furnish security within 72 hours, posted the matter to 28.07.2011. Admittedly, petitioner has not furnished the security nor did he file any application seeking extension of time to furnish security nor did he show any cause as to why he should not furnish security. 8. Sub-Rule 4 states that if the order of attachment is made without complying with the provisions of sub-Rule 2, such attachment shall be void. In the present case, the Court on being satisfied of the existence of circumstances under which the powers under sub-Rule 1 can be invoked, has directed the petitioner-defendant to furnish security. The impugned order cannot therefore be said to have been passed without compliance with the provisions of sub-Rule 1. The trial Court was well within its power and authority conferred on it by the provisions of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC in passing the impugned order. There are absolutely no valid or justifiable grounds to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial Court in the facts and circumstances of the case in passing the impugned order. Petitioner-defendant is at liberty to approach the trial Court within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and show cause as to why he should not furnish security as directed and is also at liberty to seek extension of time for furnishing the security. The impugned order does not therefore call for any interference. Till such time the petitioner-D1 approaches the trial Court and appropriate orders are passed by the trial Court, the machinery, which is under attachment, shall not be shifted by the petitioner-defendant. 9. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 12th December, 2011. Note: Furnish C.C. of the order within three days. B/o Tsy [1] 1991 (II) ALT 343 [2] 2002 (3) ALD 708