HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R. P. No. 4048 of 2009 DATED: 24.09.2009 Between: P. Venkateswara Rao .. Petitioner and Syed Shakeel and three others .. Respondents O R D E R:- This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the docket order dated 25.03.2009 made in I.A. No. 1081 of 2009 in O.S.No.191 of 2009 by the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, whereby the defendants were directed to furnish third party security for the suit amount on or before 24.06.2009 and meanwhile, ordered conditional attachment and notice to the defendants by that date The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No.191 of 2009 for recovery of an amount of Rs.35,88,226/- from the defendants. Along with the suit, he filed an application in I.A. No.1081 of 2009 praying to attach the properties of the defendants before judgment stating that he is entitled to recover the suit amount as per the suit agreement dated 21.01.2006 since he completed his part of the contract i.e. construction of buildings. The Court below ordered the said application and directed the respondents to furnish third party security for the suit amount on or before 24.06.2009 and while ordering notice to the defendants by that day, ordered conditional attachment. Questioning the said order, the petitioners-defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed the present Civil Revision Petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-defendant Nos.1 and 2 and perused the order under revision. The respondent-plaintiff, as per the terms of the agreement of building material contract, is said to have completed most of the work within the stipulated time from 5.1.2007 to 5.2.2009, by investing his own funds and material. According to him, the petitioners-defendants paid only a sum of Rs.20.00 lakhs towards construction of 5 Duplex Bungalows, and they are still liable to pay balance amount of Rs.35,88,226/-, and as the said amount is not paid, the respondent- plaintiff, apprehending that if the petitioners-defendants alienate the petition schedule properties to third parties, it will be difficult for him to realize the amounts invested by him, filed the present suit for recover of the balance amount. The Court below considering the fact that the respondent-plaintiff completed his part of the contract and is entitled to recover the amount, came to the conclusion that he had made out a prima facie for grant of order of attachment, and accordingly passed the order under revision. Since it was contended by the petitioners- defendants that the order passed by the Court below does not contain the words “you are further restrained from alienation or changing the nature of the suit schedule property in any manner till the disposal of the main case”, directed the Registrar (Judicial) to call for a report from the District Judge, Ranga Reddy. Accordingly, on telephonic instructions, the District Judge, Ranga Reddy, submitted report dated 25.09.2009 stating that the petitioners-defendants even though sought extension of time, did not furnish any security. That the petitioners- defendants filed an application in I.A. No. 3034 of 2009 on 31.07.2009 to delete the words “you are further restrained from alienation or changing the nature of the suit schedule property in any manner till the disposal of the main case”, on the ground that the said words amount to granting injunction and disallowing them to enjoy their own property. That on 17.09.2009, the Court upon hearing the said application, made an endorsement that there is no whisper in the order under revision that the petitioner shall not enter into the schedule property, to remove the apprehension in the mind of the petitioners- defendants, and posted the matter for hearing. Since the present order is merely to protect the interest of the respondent-plaintiff, and having regard to the clarification made by the Court below with respect to the order under revision, and considering the fact that the petitioners-defendants have already filed their written statement in the suit along with their counter claim, the questions whether or not the respondent-plaintiff completed the entire work, if so, what amounts the petitioners-defendants have to pay, and if not completed, what are the counter claims that can be allowed in favour of the petitioners-defendants, can be gone into only after full-fledged trial. At any rate, the present order having been passed to protect the interest of the respondent-plaintiff, and the same having been passed upon the Court having satisfied for itself that the respondent-plaintiff has made out a prima facie case, I am of the considered opinion that no interference is called for therewith by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the CRP is dismissed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 24.09.2009 bcj