A. SEETARAM REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THESE two revision petitions can be disposed of by a common order as they involve common questions. They are preferred against an order made by the lower court in exercise of its powers under R. 5 of O. XXXVIII, C. P. C attaching the gunny bags and the raw jute worth about Rs. 11,000/- and odd and bank account in a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. The order of the lower court in I. A. 449 in O. S. 34 of1988, D/-15-4-1988 reads as under : "heard the Counsel for the petitioner. Issue interim attachment and notice. Posted to 15-6-1988. "

( 2 ) THE order passed in I. A. 410 of 1988 in O. S. 32/88, dated 11-4-1988 reads as follows : "heard the Counsel for the petitioner. Issue interim attachment and Notice Posted to 13-6-1988. "

( 3 ) THE arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner were that the impugned orders of attachment which are made by way of interim order of attachment are unknown to the provisions enacted in O. 38, R. 5, C. P. C. What is postulated under R. 5 is a conditional order as laid down under sub-sec. (3) of R. 5 of the said order.

( 4 ) AN order which is said to have been effected under sub-rule (1) of R. 5 will be declared void under sub- rule (4) of R. 5 if the order does not comply with the provisions of sub-rule (1) of R. 5.

( 5 ) THE counter argument of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that the impugned orders of attachment are perfectly legal and valid. The said interim orders of attachment are not unknown, if the party brings to the notice of the court that when the interim order of attachment is not issued, the other party may cause disappearance of the property in the meantime, before notice is served and returned thereby frustrating the very object of attachment in case finally the party gets a decree, and therefore no notice or opportunity need be given to the defendant. Secondly, against the orders made by way of interim measure, no CR. lies. Under these circumstances, this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the said orders. The only recourse left open to the opposite party is to appear before the lower court and get either the order of attachment discharged or furnish security and thus get the I. A. disposed of. The points, that involve for adjudication are : (1) Whether it is cometent for the lower Court to pass the orders which are impugned herein; (2) Whether the impugned orders of attachment are in compliance with sub-r. (1) of R. 5 of O. XXXVIII, C. P. C. If not, what would be the consequence? (3) Whether it would be competent for this Court, in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction to entertain and interfere (with) the order of interim attachment as passed in this case by the lower court?

( 6 ) ORDER XXXVIII, R. 5 of C. P. C. reads thus :"attachment before judgment where defendant may be called upon to furnish security for production of property. 5 (1 ). Where, at any stage of a suit, the Court is satisfied, by affidavit or otherwise, that the defendant with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against him. (a) is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property, or (b) is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court may direct the defendant, within a time to be fixed by it, either to furnish security, in such sum as may be specified in the order, to produce and place at the disposal of the Court when required the said property or the value of the same, or such portion thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the decree, or to appear and show cause why he should not furnish security. 2. The plaintiff shall unless the Court otherwise directs specify the property required to be attached and the estimated value thereof. 3. The Court may also in the order direct the conditional attachment of the whole or any portion of the property so specified. 4. If an order of attachment is made without complying with the provisions of sub-rule (1) of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document