1 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.886/2008 Dilip Parakh & Ors. vs. Panna Lal & Ors. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.886/2008 Dilip Parakh & Ors. vs. Panna Lal & Ors. Date : 20.10.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.V Sanadhya for Mr.V Balia, for the appellant. Mr.RK Thanvi, for the respondents. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellants are aggrieved against the order dated 21.1.2008 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge No.3, Jodhpur under Order 38 Rule 6 CPC whereby the trial court attached the House No.37E situated at Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff filed one application under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC which was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 1.12.2006 and the defendants/appellants were directed to submit the security for Rs.3 lakhs and also restrained the defendants from alienating the House No.37E situated at Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur. 2 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.886/2008 Dilip Parakh & Ors. vs. Panna Lal & Ors. Admittedly, the security was not submitted by the defendants, then the plaintiff submitted application under Order 38 Rule 6 CPC for attachment of the House No.37E situated at Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in order dated 1.12.2006, the trial court did not give any time for furnishing the security and thereby the appellant could not comply with the order dated 1.12.2006. It is submitted that giving of time under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC is mandatory. I perused the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and the reasons given by the trial court in its impugned order. Since the appellant did not submit any security and the order dated 1.12.2006 has never been challenged by the appellant, therefore, after carefully going through the facts of the case, if the trial court has passed the order to attach the property in dispute which, according to the appellant himself, he cannot sell as that property is also subjected to interim restraint order passed by Bombay High Court, therefore, in the totality of the facts of the case, I do not find 3 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.886/2008 Dilip Parakh & Ors. vs. Panna Lal & Ors. that the trial court has committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. In view of the above, this appeal, having no merits, is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya