THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2612 OF 2022
ORDER:
This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners/plaintiffs assailing the orders dated 08.09.2022 in I.A.No.1308 of 2022 in O.S.No.461 of 2018 on the file of the XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.
2. This I.A.No.1308 of 2022 was filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 38, Rule 5 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code (for short 'CPC') to direct the 1st respondent/1st defendant to furnish security for an amount of Rs.1,86,69,766.73 paise within the time fixed by the Court, failing which to issue conditional attachment of petition schedule properties. Learned Judge of the trial Court has dismissed the said application with an observation that the petitioners have not specifically pleaded that the 1st defendant is either making any attempts to alienate the suit schedule property or to remove it from the jurisdiction of that Court to delay or defeat the execution of the decree that may be passed against her and the only apprehension of the petitioners is that AVR,J CRP_2612_2022 Page 2 of 5 if the 1st respondent/1st defendant, who is in the twilight of her life, God forbid, leaves this word to heavenly abode, it becomes difficult to execute the decree that may be eventually passed in the suit, it would remain on paper and it is not a ground enumerated under the scheme of Order 38, Rule 5 of CPC.
3. Notice ordered to the 1st respondent/1st defendant was served, but there is no representation on her behalf, whereas the respondent Nos.2 to 8 are not necessary parties as per the cause title.
4. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the submissions made have received due consideration of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the principles laid in Bommana Saree Mandir, Appellants Vs. Manisha Sarees, Respondent1.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revision petitioner that 1st respondent has withdrawn entire amount which was transferred to her account as nominee of the deceased PVG Raju and she is living for the present with her daughter, it is just and essential to order conditional 1 AIR 2002 AP 66 AVR,J CRP_2612_2022 Page 3 of 5 attachment of suit schedule A and B properties before judgment in order to protect the interest of the petitioners/plaintiffs in the suit schedule A amount.
6. Perused the material available on record, including the orders in CRP No.1341 of 2019 dated 22.04.2022 wherein the trial Court was directed to expedite the disposal of O.S.No.461 of 2018 and to make every endeavour for disposal of the same within six months from the date of receipt of copy of the said order.
7. Be it stated that the said order in CRP No.1341 of 2019 was passed on 22.04.2022 and it is submitted by learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs that the evidence of the defendant is also recorded and the Original Suit is ripen for disposal. In such circumstances, having regard to the scheme of Order 38, Rule 5 of CPC and settled principles of law, more particularly the principles laid by the Apex Court in Raman Tech. and Process Engineering Company and another Vs. Solanki Traders2 I do not find any infirmity in the order impugned. Any attempt by plaintiffs to utilize the 2 2008 (6) ALT 18 (SC) AVR,J CRP_2612_2022 Page 4 of 5 provisions of Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC as leverage for coercing the defendants to settle the suit claim should be discouraged.
8. The facts of the case on hand are distinguishable from the facts in Bommana Saree Mandir (1st supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for revision petitioners and there is no averment in the supporting affidavit that the respondent/defendant is trying to move out of the jurisdiction of the Court or trying to alienate the schedule A and B properties. Therefore, in the factual matrix discussed above, in view of the principles laid by the Apex court in Raman Tech (2nd supra), for exercising the power under Order 38, Rule 5 of CPC and the earlier order of this Court in CRP No.1341 of 2019 I do not find any infirmity or irregularity in the well reasoned order impugned and it does not warrant interference by this Court. At the cost of repetition it is reiterated that the earlier order confirmed in CRP No.1341 of 2019 is sufficient to protect the interest of the petitioners/plaintiffs.
9. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed confirming the order impugned dated 08.09.2022 in I.A.No.1308 of 2022 in O.S.No.461 of 2018 on the file of the AVR,J CRP_2612_2022 Page 5 of 5 XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. The learned Judge of the trial Court is reminded of the directions in CRP No.1341 of 2019 for expeditious disposal of the Original Suit in O.S.No.461 of 2018 within six months from the date of receipt of copy of that order dated 22.04.2022.
In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to the costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications if any pending, shall stands closed.
________________________________ A.VENKATESWHARA REDDY, J Dated : 14-12-2022 Abb