HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5612 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S.No.166 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam filed for recovery of an amount on the strength of promissory note. It is stated that the petitioner-defendant, who is the civil contractor, borrowed a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- from the respondents-plaintiffs for the purpose of business and had executed a demand promissory note in their favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. It is stated that, despite repeated demands, neither the principal nor interest was paid and, therefore, the above suit was filed by the respondents- plaintiffs. It is further stated that since the petitioner-defendant was neither an agriculturist nor an artisan, he was not entitled to any benefit under the A.P. Act 7 of 1977. It is stated that the petitioner-defendant had completed certain civil contracts such as Water Supply Works, Project Works and Miscellaneous Works in Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam and also check measurements were done. It is stated that the petitioner-defendant is planning to decamp from Visakhapatnam soon after realisation of his pending bills with the Commissioner, Greater Visakhaptnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam and, if the entire bills were drawn, it may not be possible to recover the suit amount. Therefore, the respondents- plaintiffs filed a petition, under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC, in I.A.No.980 of 2009 in O.S.No.166 of 2009, to direct the petitioner- defendant to furnish security to the suit amount and costs within prescribed time, failing which, an order of attachment before judgment by way of pro order on his garnishee (Commissioner, Greater Visakhaptnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam) to be passed to attach the amount towards pending bills of the petitioner-defendant, which would be released to him for execution of the civil works of the Corporation. Counter affidavit was filed by the petitioner-defendant opposing to pass any garnishee order. The Court below, after considering the rival contentions, allowed the petition directing the petitioner-defendant to furnish security for the suit amount, failing which, pro order was directed to be issued against the garnishee restraining the Commissioner, Greater Visakhaptnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam from paying bills lying to the credit of the petitioner-defendant relating to the contract executed by him. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition was filed more than a year back. As none appeared for the petitioner, this Court has not issued any notice. It is not known whether the impugned order had already been executed or not. If the garnishee order had already been issued, nothing would survive in the revision. However, if the petitioner-defendant had failed to furnish the security for the suit amount as on date and, if any garnishee order was not issued as on date, he is permitted to furnish security within one week from today. With the above observation, the revision stands disposed of. No order as to costs. V. ESWARAIAH,J Date:11.02.2011 usd