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