( 1 ) THIS Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under order 43 Rule 1 (q) is directed against an order dated 17-11-2004 passed in I. A. No. 181 of 2004 in O. S. No. 12 of 2004 on the file of the court of II Additional District Judge, Guntur.

( 2 ) THE appellants in this appeal are defendants 1 and 2 in O. S. No. 12 of 2004. 1st respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,85,933/- with interest and costs from the defendants basing on a promissory note dated 9-4-2001 for rs. 6,50,000/ -. In the said suit the plaintiff moved I. A. No. 181 of 2004 under Order 38 rule 5 r/w Section 151 of C. P. C. seeking attachment before judgment of amounts lying with the Executive Engineer AMRB Projects, gandhamarigudem, Nalgonda, payable to defendants 1 and 2 on account of remodelling of Udayasamudram Tank, Ponnugal, pending disposal of the suit.

( 3 ) THE material averments in the affidavit filed in support of I. A. No. 181 of 2004 sworn to by Garikapati Radha Krishnaian-Plaintiff read that the defendants with an intent to obstruct or delay execution of the decree that may be passed against them are trying to dispose of their property and also with a view to evade debts due to them and other genuine creditors are trying to alienate the property. The defendants have to receive several amounts on account of the contract work completed by them. The defendants are hastily attempting to take away the amounts due from the department and if they are permitted to do so, he may not be in a position to recover any thing from the defendants in the event of decree being passed against them in the suit.

( 4 ) THE learned District Judge, on perusal of the material available on record, issued a show cause notice to the defendants No. 1 and 2 while ordering conditional attachment by way of pro order on 19-3-2004.

( 5 ) DEFENDANTS Nos. 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed counter. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief under Order 38 Rule 5 c. P. C. unless he makes out a case that the defendants No. 1 and 2 are attempting to alienate their properties. It is further stated in the counter that the defendant No. 1 is a registered contractor having its contract works in State of A. P. and elsewhere in India, with annual turnover in crores. They have machinery and immovable properties worth crores of rupees besides deposits in Bank.

( 6 ) LEARNED District Judge, on consideration of rival claims of the parties, directed the defendants No. 1 and 2 to furnish their own security to the suit claim along with one third party security by submitting their original title deeds for the value of the suit claim, by an orderdated 17-11 -2004. For better appreciation, we may extract the relevant portion of the order and it is thus;"in the result, the respondents 1 and 2 who are defendants 1 and 2 in the main suit, are directed to furnish their own security to the suit claim in the name of the Court with one third party security in the name of the Court by submitting their original title deeds for the value of the suit claim. On fulfillment of such conditions, the interim attachment orders passed in this matter, dated 9-2-2004, are raised, Failing which the interim attachment orders passed by this Court shall continue till disposal of the main suit. If the respondents 1 and 2 fulfilled the conditions as imposed against them, the attachment orders passed in this matter against R-3 and R-4 will be raised. If not, they shall continue till disposal of the main suit. Ordered accordingly, Call on for compliance report by 10-12-2004. "assailing the said order, the defendants No. 1 and 2 have come up with the present Civil miscellaneous Appeal.

( 7 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

( 8 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellants-defendants No. 1 and 2 submits that the appellants-defendants No. 1 and 2 were having credit facilities with the Andhra bank to a tune of Rs. 70,00,000/- as on the date