The respondent filed O.S.No.171 of 2006, in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar, for recovery of certain amount, on the basis of a promissory note. The petitioner was set ex parte, on account of his failure to file the written statement, within the stipulated time, and thereafter, the suit was posted for issues. At that stage, the respondent filed I.A.No.436 of 2006, under Rule 1 of Order XXXVIII CPC, with a prayer to direct the arrest of the petitioner. It was pleaded that the petitioner is hatching a plan, to transfer all his properties, in the name of third parties, and trying to leave the local limits of the court, for abroad. The petitioner filed a counter affidavit opposing the I.A. He pleaded that he does not have any movable or immovable properties, and the question of transferring the same to third parties does not arise. He denied the allegation that he is trying to leave the local limits of the court. He stated that his two children are studying in a school at Kodad, and he has undertaken that he would not leave the present place of living, till the disposal of the suit. Through its order, dated 6.11.2006, the trial court required the petitioner, to produce third party security, within four days. The same is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition.

2. Sri E.V.Bhagiratha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the filing of the application by the respondent was in gross misuse of process of court. He contends that the respondent made bald allegations that the petitioner is trying to alienate the property and leaving the local limits of the court. According to him, the trial court committed a serious error, in not adverting to any of the contentions advanced by the petitioner, raised in the counter affidavit and during the course of arguments. He submits that the order under revision does not accord with the procedure prescribed under Rule 1 of Order XXXVIII CPC.

3. Sri Palle Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that only on receiving reliable information, about the attempts of the petitioner, to dispose of his properties and to leave the local limits of the trial court, the respondent filed the application, and that the trial court was prima facie satisfied, about the allegations. He contends that the very fact that the petitioner is not coming forward to furnish security, discloses that there are no bonafides, on his part.

4. Order XXXVIII CPC had two important components, in the context of protecting the interests of the plaintiff, in a suit for recovery of amounts. The first is covered by Rule 1 thereof, which enables the plaintiff to seek the arrest of the defendant, and the second is covered by Rule 5, which provides for attachment of the property held by the defendant, before judgment. In an application filed under Rule 1, the plaintiff has to satisfy the court that the defendant has absconded the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court; or is about to dispose of, or remove from the local limits of jurisdiction, any property, or is likely to do so; with the object of defeating the decree that may be passed against him. In the other contingency, the satisfaction is only, as to disposal, or removal of the property, from the jurisdiction of the court.

5. The nature of steps to be taken by the court substantially varies, in relation to the applications that may be filed, under Rule 1 on the one hand and Rule 5, on the other, of Order XXXVIII CPC. In the former, on being prima facie satisfied about the contents of the affidavit, or otherwise, the court may, straightaway, issue warrant of arrest for the production of the defendant, before the court, so that he may be required to furnish security, for his appearance. In case of attachment before judgment, the court is under obligation to give an opportunity to the defendant, either to furnish security in a sum, or to produce the property, at the disposal of the court, or to appear and show-