By the order dated 29.02.2008, this court admitted the civil revision petition and granted interim stay in CRP MP No.1016 of 2008. In CRP MP No.1998 of 2008 in CRP MP No.1016 of 2008 by the order dated 02.05.2008 the said interim stay was made absolute.

2. Sri V.Ch.Naidu, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner would maintain that the impugned order is self-contradictory. A perusal of the second part of the order shows that there is a direction to furnish security for Rs.17,89,052/- and further it is directed to show cause as to why the revision petitioner shall not be directed to furnish security and that, if the revision petitioner fails to furnish security, there shall be attachment of items 1 to 5 of the schedule after giving five hours time. The learned counsel would also maintain that none of the ingredients to be satisfied under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short - 'the Code'), had been satisfied. The learned counsel would also maintain that the revision petitioner is a statutory authority functioning under the Government and hence there is no need to direct the revision petitioner to furnish security. The learned counsel would also maintain that no notice under Section 80 of the Code at least had been given. The learned counsel had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the application and would maintain that absolutely there are no averments made in the said affidavit filed in support of the application at least just to satisfy the necessary ingredients to be satisfied in relation to Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code. The learned counsel also placed strong reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in RAMAN TECH. & PROCESS ENGG. CO. v. SOLANKI TRADERS1.

3. On the contrary, Sri D.Madhava Rao, the learned counsel representing the respondent, would maintain that this being an interlocutory order which was made just directing the revision petitioner to furnish security to safeguard the interest of the respondent-plaintiff, such interlocutory order ordinarily not to be interfered with and maintained that in a civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, especially in the light of the amended Section 115 of the Code, and also in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in SURYA DEV RAI v. RAM CHANDER RAI AND OTHERS, when the learned Judge exercised the discretion properly while making an order under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code, such an order not to be interfered with at best the same may be modified by giving further reasonable opportunity or reasonable time to furnish security and nothing beyond thereto. The learned counsel would also maintain that at least a direction may be given to furnish bank guarantee, in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

4. Heard the counsel on record.

5. Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, the revision petitioner-respondent-defendant, had preferred the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 14.02.2008 which was served on 19.02.2008 made in IA No.445 of 2008 in OS No.14 of 2008 by the Hon'ble I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad.

6. The said order impugned reads as hereunder. "Whereas the petitioner/plaintiff has made out to the satisfaction of this court that the respondent is due an amount of Rs.17,89,052/- and not releasing the payments inspite of several requests and persuasions made by the petitioner and trying to remove the movables in which case it would be difficult to recover the suit claim by the petitioner. You are hereby directed to furnish security for Rs.17,89,052/- and to show cause to why you shall not be directed to furnish security for the above said suit amount and if you fail to furnish the security, there shall be attachment of items Nos.1 to 5 of the schedule after giving five hours time by 19.3.2008."

7. At the ou