THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1581 OF 2010 Between: Yakkali Narayani …Petitioner A n d Syed Saheb Peera ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1581 OF 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 02-03-2010 in C.M.A.No.3 of 2010, on the file of the II-Additional District Judge, Ongole, wherein the said appeal filed by the petitioner herein, was dismissed, confirming the order dated 24-11-2009 in I.A.No.164 of 2009 in O.S.No.110 of 2008, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Markapur. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. Perused the records. 3. The petitioner herein filed the suit for recovery of certain amount from the respondent. He also filed I.A.No.1105 of 2008 under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC for attachment before judgment. The trial Court directed conditional attachment on 20-01-2009 requiring the respondent-defendant to furnish security within 48 hours. As the respondent failed to furnish security, the attachment of certain amount lying with the guarnishee by way of prohibitory order was made absolute. Subsequently, the respondent- defendant filed I.A.No.164 of 2009 under Order XXXVIII 9 CPC seeking withdrawal of the attachment and offering the third party security furnished by his two sons. The trial Court, by order dated 24-11-2009, allowed the said application and accepted the third party surety furnished by the two sons of the defendant and raised the attachment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-plaintiff filed CMA.No.3 of 2010 and the same was dismissed by the impugned order. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff would submit that the property offered as a security is only Ac.4- 00 and odd which is also subject to a mortgage in respect of an extent of Ac.1-75 cents and as per the valuation certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, the property is worth only Rs.60,000/- per acre and, therefore, the security offered is not sufficient to meet the suit claim, which is more than Rs.5 lakhs. 5. It is to be noted that the sureties are none else than the sons of the defendant. Further, as seen from the order of the trial Court, the total extent of the property furnished as surety by the two sons is Ac.6-73 cents. Even assuming that an encumbrance by way of mortgage is in force in respect of Ac.1-73 cents, still an extent of about Ac.5-00 is free from encumbrance. The valuation certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar showing the value of the land as Rs.60,000/- per acre is only for the purpose of stamp duty and registration and the same cannot be taken as market value of the property. The suit claim, as seen from the impugned order, is only Rs.3,32,763/-. Hence, having regard to the fact that an extent of Ac.5-00 out of the property offered as surety is free from any encumbrance and the value of the land is certainly more than Rs.60,000/- per acre, it is considered that the security offered by the two sureties is sufficient to safeguard the interest of the plaintiff. Hence, the impugned order passed by the trial Court and confirmation of the same by the appellate Court, does not call for any interference. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 08th March, 2011 Lrkm.