LINGARAJA RATH, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge, rajahmundry directing, on 14-6-l996 in I. A. No. 2580/1995, attachment of the properties of theappellantbeforejudgment. Itisurged,assailing the impugned order that the order was passed in mechanical manner under Order 38 Rule 6 cpc without following the mandatory procedures of law and without forming the requisite satisfaction of there being a genuine case made out that the appellant was trying to dispose of the schedule properties.

( 2 ) IT appears that on an application, I. A. No. 2580/1995 filed under Order 38 rule 5 CPC by the respondent, an order was passed on 4-12-1995 by the learned subordinate Judge as follows:"heard the advocate for petitioner. Respondent is directed to furnish security for the suit amount failing which conditional attachment and notice 14-12-1995. Court Order: the respondent is directed to furnish security for the suit amount failing which conditional attachment. Hence the Bailiff of City Small Cause court, Madras is directed to carry out the above order. "

( 3 ) THE bailiff of thecity Small Cause Court, Madras was accompained by the agent of respondent-plaintiff to carry out the order. The endorsement of the bailiff on 12-12-1995 was to the effect thathe had goneonll-12-1995alongwith the plaintiffs agent to the address of the appellant who was not present. The bailiff recorded in his report that the security was not furnished and the plaintiff s agent asked him to attach the property. On an enquiry, the bailiff was informed that the respondent had gone out and the time of his return was not known. He affixed a copy of the notice on the door of the premises. Item No. 1 property of the petition was not attached as the street s name of the property was not mentioned in the warrant, but the bailiff went to the Item II property and as the respondent was not present, he attached the property since no security was furnished. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that an application registered as I. A. No. 136/1996 was filed to amend the schedule of the petition under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC so as to correctly describe item No. l of the schedule property. That petition was allowed on 28-2-19%. The matter was put up for final orders before the Court which passed orders on 14-6-1996, after hearing both the parties, that the third-party affidavit established of the appellant s attempt to alienate the schedule properties to defeat the claim of the petitioner for which the respondent was entitled to attachment before judgment. The Court directed the attachment already effected in respect Item II of the schedule property as being made absolute and directed fresh warrant of attachment in respect of Item No. l of the properties. Later on, the Court Ameen at Madras, accompanied by the respondent s agent, went to Item I of the property on 3-7-1996 and recording that no security was furnished, attached the property.

( 4 ) SRI T. Veerabhadrayy a, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that item No. l of the schedule property does not belong to the appellant but for the purpose of the case, we do not want to enter into any decision on the question.

( 5 ) APPARENTLY, the order impugned is one passed under Order 38 Rule 6cpc as a final order of attachment of the property before the judgment in the suit. Order 38 Rule 5 sub-rule (4) provides an order of attachment made under order 38 Rule 6 without complying with the provisions of sub-rule (1) to be void. Under Order 38 Rule 5 sub-rule (1), the Court is called upon, when a petition for attachment before judgment is moved before it, to call upon the defendant to furnish security as stated therein. Order 38 Rule 6 prescribes that only when the defendant fails to show cause why he should not furnish security or fails to furnish the security required, the attachment of the property may be directed. This attachment is different than the conditional attach

Click Here to Read the rest of this document