HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1268 of 2010 Date: 15th June 2010 Between: D. Venkata Ramana. … Petitioner And Boothkury Baghavantha Reddy. … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1268 of 2010 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for petitioner, and inspite of service, there is no appearance on behalf of respondent. This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.20 of 2010 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, aggrieved by the order, dated 18th of March 2010, passed in I.A.No.99 of 2010 in the said suit. The suit in O.S.No.20 of 2010 is filed by the respondent/plaintiff, for recovery of money, based on the pronote. Pending the suit, he has filed an application in I.A.No.99 of 2010 under Order 38, Rule 1 (a)(i) and (ii) of C.P.C., seeking arrest of the petitioner/defendant, on the ground that he is likely to be transferred from Jangaon in Warangal District of Andhra Pradesh to Jabalpur of Madhya Pradesh State. It is stated that if the petitioner is transferred outside the local limits, it is very difficult to recover the amount due from him. On the ground that earlier, the petitioner has failed to furnish security as ordered by the Court and the petitioner has also failed to attend the Court, the impugned order is passed by the Court below, for arrest of the petitioner. In this revision petition, it is contended by Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, that in this case, there are absolutely no ingredients to attract the provision under Order 38 Rule 1 (a)(i) and (2), so as to order for arrest of the petitioner. It is stated that without recording any valid reasons, the impugned order is passed for arrest of the petitioner, curtailing his freedom and liberty. A perusal of the provision under Order 38 Rule 1 makes it clear that if there is any attempt on the part of the defendant himself to abscond or leave the local limits on his own, with a view to defeat the claim of the plaintiff, such an order can be passed. In this revision, even according to the respondent/plaintiff, petitioner is an employee of BSNL. If the petitioner is likely to be transferred by the management, as averred by the respondent/plaintiff himself, it cannot be said that the petitioner, on his own, is trying to leave the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court or taking any steps to defeat the claim of plaintiff, so as to order for his arrest under Order 38 Rule 1 (a) and (b) of C.P.C. Therefore, I am of the view that no valid reasons have been recorded by the Court below for arrest of the petitioner, and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. For the aforesaid reasons, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed, and the order, dated 18th of March 2010, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, in I.A.No.99 of 2010 in O.S.No.20 of 2010, is set aside. Consequently, the said I.A. stands dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 15th June 2010 ajr