THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.112 OF 2023
ORDER:
1. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the main suit, filed petition under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC to direct the defendants to furnish security for the suit amount of Rs.10,20,000/-, failing which, to attach the amounts lying in the savings account of the 1st respondent in Deccan Grameena Bank, Seetharampally branch.
2. The case of the petitioner is that there was an outstanding amount of Rs.10,20,000/- on the basis of promissory note executed by the 1st respondent herein. The 2nd respondent/defendant No.2 stood as guarantor. Since there was failure to repay the amount, suit was filed.
3. The plaintiff in order to make out case for attachment before judgment submitted that the defendants would leave the local limits of the court to avoid payment, for which reason, bank account has to be attached.
4. Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mancherial found that the pension proceeds of the 1st respondent cannot be attached and 2 consequently, there is no other proof that the respondent would dispose his assets and leave the jurisdiction.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the court below has committed error in not attaching the property when the claim is based upon a promissory note. He further submits that if no attachment of the account of the 1st respondent, surety may be directed to be furnished. He further submits that the service of notice to the defendants in the present proceedings is not necessary to pass an order. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment in the case of Yenamala Chandra Reddy v. Nuvvula Chandramouli Naidu1 and also the order of this Court in CRP No.1451 of 2022, dated 02.11.2022 in the case of Vuthuru Harish Kumar v. Vuthuru Mallikarjun and another.
6. According to Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC, it has to be established that the defendant is about to dispose off whole or any part of the property or material to move from the local limits of the jurisdictional court. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent is an employee and permanent resident of Mancherial. No case is made out by the petitioner to order furnishing of security or attach the account of 1 1991 SCC OnLine AP 281 3 the 2nd respondent. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court.
7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to dispose off the main suit itself within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 09.02.2023 kvs 4 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.112 OF 2023 Dt. 09.02.2023 kvs