P. S. NARAYANA, J, J.

( 1 ) APPELLANT is the respondent-defendant in I. A. No. 150 of 2001 in O. S. No. 384 of 2001 on the file of the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

( 2 ) THE present appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by an order made by the learned Judge on 19-3-2001 under Order 38 Rule 6 CPC.

( 3 ) THE respondent-plaintiff filed a suit O. S. No. 384 of 2001 on the file of the VII Senior Civil Judge,city Civil Court, Hyderabad for recovery of certain amounts. Along with the suit, the respondent has also filed an application I. A. No. 150 of 2001 under Order 38 rule 5 read with S. 151 CPC seeking attachment before judgment. It was averred by the respondent-plaintiff that he is a wholesale dealer of Banaras, Calcutta cotton and other fancy sarees and has been doing the business for the last several years at Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. It was also averred that the appellant-respondent-defendant is carrying on cloth business under the name and style of "bommana Saree Mandir" at Tilak Road, Hyderabad. It was further averred that the appellant herein used to buy sarees from the respondent on 30 days credit basis from 1997 onwards and in that process certain payments were not made within the stipulated time for the last several months and has been taking time by making certain false promises. It was also specifically averred in the affidavit filed in support of the said application that on reliable sources, the respondent herein came to know that the appellant is making serious attempts to shift the business by closing the shop with a view to defraud his creditors and that he is also indebted to several other wholesale dealers in the market and if he succeeds either in shifting the business or closing the shop, he will be put to serious loss and damage and he will not be able to recover any amounts and as such in the facts and circumstances, it may be just and necessary to attach the cloth material i. e. sarees to a tune of Rs. 6,66974/- by way of attachment before judgment. It is also brought to our notice that in support of this affidavit, a third party affidavit supporting his application has also been filed along with the party s affidavit.

( 4 ) AS can be seen from the material available on record, on 5-3-2001, the learned Judge had passed the following order;"heard. Perused petitioner s affidavi,the averments of the plaint and the documents. Issue show cause notice to the respondent under Order 38 Rule 5 (1) of CPC why attachment cannot be ordered to furnish security for suit amount on 15-3-2001. "

( 5 ) SUBSEQUENT thereto certain adjournments had been granted and ultimately inasmuch as the condition specified in the show cause notice was not complied with, the present impugned order was made by the learned Judge, which is to the following effect. "the respondent did not submit the security for the suit amount though time was granted till this day. The respondent earlier said he would settle the matter with the petitioner or file security. But faulted. Waited till after 4. 00 p. m. Heard. Issue warrant of attachment of movables on payment of bata under Order 38 rule 6 CPC by 27-3-2001. "

( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by the above said order, the present appeal is filed. It is also brought to our notice a counter was also filed before the trial Court to the application filed by the respondent seeking the relief of attachment before judgment.

( 7 ) IT is also brought to our notice that the appellant-respondent-defendant had filed a memo on 16-3-2001 to the effect that if there are any dues as on that day, he is ready and willing to pay the same and he had also under taken that he is not going to close the business or shift the business till the suit amount is settled by both the parties.

( 8 ) HEARD both the counsel.

( 9 ) SRI K. V. Satyanarayana, the learned counsel representing the appellant-respondent-defendant had vehemently contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in law. The order as such must be rea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document