THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4598 OF 2010 ORDER : 1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 16.07.2010 in I.A. No.194 of 2010 in O.S. No.10 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money against the petitioner/defendant, and made therein I.A. No.194 of 2010 under Order XXXIII Rule 5(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to attach the schedule property mentioned therein before judgment, wherein the impugned order was passed, relevant portion of which reads thus: “Heard both sides. The petitioner’s counsel contention though admitted amount of Rs.20,00,000-00 due, for that cheques issued. The petition schedule properties are only the properties owned by the respondent as per the E.C. If that properties are sold there is no possibility of realization of the amount. Hence, attach the said properties. For this respondent’s counsel contended that admitted the amount due an amount of Rs.20,00,000-00 but unable to furnish security as there are no other properties, so they have no objection to attach the properties. Hence, from the petitioner’s counsel there is force and there are reasonable grounds to allow the petitioner.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant vehemently contended that there is no proof to show that the defendant borrowed the amount from the plaintiff; that there is no allegation with regard to borrowal of the amount in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, and that when a detailed counter affidavit has been filed in the interlocutory application, the question admitting the borrowal and also for attaching the property does not arise, and therefore, he prays to set aside the same. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff sought to sustain the impugned order on the ground that no irregularity has been made by the trial court. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant that when the petitioner/defendant filed a detailed counter affidavit in the interlocutory application denying the debt, the question of his counsel admitting the amount due, as observed by the trial court, does not arise. When an observation is made by the court in an order during the course of judicial proceedings, the same has to be rectified by the same court. If the counsel for the petitioner/ defendant appearing in the trial court has not made any such representation admitting the amount due to an extent of Rs.20,00,000/- before the trial court, the counsel ought to have filed an affidavit about the same in the same court and sought for correction of the mistake, if any, committed by the trial court. What transpired on that day is not known to this Court so as to give a direction. Therefore, a liberty is given to the counsel for the petitioner appearing in the trial court to file necessary application along with affidavit, if at all he wants to challenge the observation made by the trial Court with regard to the admission made by him. 6. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the above observation. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 24.6.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4598 OF 2010 24.6.2011