IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
R. Raghunandan Rao, J.
Shaik Subhani – Petitioner
Versus
Velisala Yedukondalu alias Anil Kumar – Respondent
C.R.P.No.1228 of 2021
Decided On : 23-12-2021
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XXXVIII Rule 5 – Suit for recovery of amount - Order of attachment of Property - Respondent herein had filed Suit for recovery of amount with interest against petitioners herein - He also filed I.A. under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 C.P.C., seeking attachment of schedule property of petitioners. Trial Court by order ordered conditional attachment directing petitioners to furnish security equivalent to suit amount within 72 hours, failing which attachment order would be made absolute - Revision petition - Held, Order of attachment should also show satisfaction of the trial Court about allegations made in the application. Learned counsel for petitioners contends that none of these conditions have been complied with - A perusal of order shows that trial court did not give any reasons as to why Court was satisfied about intent of petitioners to sell away their property, which is the petition schedule property. Further, no opportunity was given to the petitioners to make out their case before trial Court - Civil revision petition is allowed.
ORDER :
1. The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.128 of 2021 before the Junior Civil Judge, Piduguralla, for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest against the petitioners herein. He also filed I.A.No.220 of 2021 under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 C.P.C., seeking attachment of schedule property of the petitioners. The trial Court by order dated 20.07.2021 ordered conditional attachment directing the petitioners to furnish security equivalent to the suit amount within 72 hours, failing which attachment order would be made absolute. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners had approached this Court by way of this revision petition.
2. The petitioners were permitted to take out personal notice to the respondents and had filed proof of service, which showed that the notice sent to the respondent was refused by the respondent. In the circumstances, the said service shall be treated as service of notice on the respondent.
3. Smt. Manikyaveena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Naganjaneyulu Borra, learned counsel for the petitioner, relies upon a judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in Vemulapalli Ravichandra vs. Mattampalli Srinivasa Rao, 2007 (4) ALD 485 to contend that an order of this nature could not have been given without notice to the petitioners and without giving them an opportunity to set out their objections for attachment of their property. She further contends that the order of attachment should also show satisfaction of the trial Court about the allegations made in the application. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that none of these conditions have been complied with.
4. A perusal of the order shows that the trial court did not give any reasons as to why the Court was satisfied about the intent of the petitioners to sell away their property, which is the petition schedule property. Further, no opportunity was given to the petitioners to make out their case before the trial Court.
5. In the circumstances, this civil revision petition is allowed setting aside the order of the trial Court dated 20.07.2021 in I.A.No.220 of 2021 in O.S.No.128 of 2021 and the same is remanded back to the trial Court for proper adjudication in accordance with the provisions of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 C.P.C. There shall be no order as to costs.
6. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
The Court's decision emphasized the principle that in an application for attachment before judgment, the Court needs to form a prima facie opinion to secure the plaintiff's interest, and the defendan....
Under Rule 89 of the Civil Rules of Practice, the court has a duty to inform the Registrar Office about the disposal of the suit and to remove any order of attachment on immoveable property.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of protecting the rights of third parties, such as bona fide purchasers, under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.
An order making an interim attachment absolute under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of CPC is appealable.
The court emphasized the need to protect claimant rights by preventing asset disposal during ongoing legal proceedings.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.