Heard Sri. J. Prabhakar, the learned counsel representing the appellant and Sri Venu, the learned counsel representing Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, the learned counsel representing the contesting respondents.

2. In the light of the view expressed by the Division Bench in Union Bank of India v. M/s. Andhra Technocrat Industries AIR 1992 A.P. 408, office objection was over-ruled on 04-02-2005 and the Registry was directed to number the appeal, if it is otherwise in order. Interim suspension was granted on 17-02-2005 on condition of depositing a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and the interim suspension was made absolute on 4-3-2005 since the conditional order had been complied with.

3. Sri. J. Prabhakar, the learned counsel representing the appellant had drawn the attention of this Court or Order 38 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred as “the code” for the purpose of convenience), and further had drawn the attention of this Court to Order 21 Rule 46-A of the Code and would maintain that instead of deciding the question in controversy, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sathupally totally erred in observing that these aspects also can be decided at the time of disposal of the suit. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that defendants 4 and 5 in the suit filed I.A. No. 364 of 2004 in O.S. No. 66 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sathupally for deletion of their names and the said application was allowed without costs and the same had been challenged by way of C.R.P. No. 1084 of 2005 before this Court and the same was also dismissed. At any rate, the learned counsel would maintain that even if the reasons recorded by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sathupally to be taken into consideration especially, in the light of the subsequent events, it is a fit matter to be remitted again to the learned Judge to decide the question involved after hearing both the parties instead of postponing such a decision to be decided at the time of final disposal of the suit.

4. Sri Venu, the learned counsel representing Sri. K. Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for contesting respondents would submit that in the light of the elaborate convincing reasons, which had been recorded by the learned Judge, this is not a fit matter to be interfered with and, hence, the civil miscellaneous appeal is to be dismissed.

5. Respondents 1 and 2 herein/petitioners/plaintiffs filed an application I.A.No. 369 of 2003 in O.S. No. 66 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sathupally under Order 38 Rule 5 read with Section 94 (e) of the Code praying for an order of attachment before judgment against an amount of Rs. 6,80,000/- and the accrued interest lying with respondent No. 3-defendant No. 3, the garnishee and consequently, pass necessary directions to respondent No. 3-defendant No. 3 not to disburse the amounts/credits in favour of respondents 1 and 2.

6. The brief averments made in the said I.A. No. 369 of 2003 in O.S. No. 66 of 2003 are hereunder:-

“That the petitioner filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 6,75,207/- against respondents 1 and 2. Respondent No. 1, who worked as Clerk-Cum-cashier in Andhra Bank, Kallur Branch, the petitioner is a Saving Bank Account holder in that branch, out of acquaintance with the petitioner, respondent No.1 borrowed an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- on three occasions from petitioner No. 1 by executing promissory notes agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 21% p.a. Further, in the month of January, 2003, the 1st respondent was transferred to Vaakadu of Nelluru District, knowing the same, the petitioner demanded the 1st respondent for repayment of debt. The 1st respondent came to the petitioner and stated that he is ready to pay an amount of Rs. 6,15,000/- and advised him to open account in the said bank, the petitioner opened the account in the name of his wife, the 2nd petitioner vide account bearing No. A.B.G. 817, the respondent No. 1 mis-represented that he deposited