Enreddi Thirupathi Reddy vs Lingampalli Bheemaiah
2023 Latest Caselaw 676 Tel

         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

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

1991 SCC OnLine AP 281

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

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.112 OF 2023

Dt. 09.02.2023

kvs