Satisfaction of the Court is a pre-requisite for grant of conditional attachment under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of CPC. Failure to comply with the requirements of Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of CPC renders the Order of attachment void.

JUDGMENT

1. These two Revisions Petitions have been filed aggrieved by a docket Order dtd. 25/2/2021 in I.A.No.221 of 2020 in O.S.No.15 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla and are disposed of by this Common Order.

2. The petitioner in C.R.P.No.140 of 2022, is a 3rd party and was granted leave to present the Civil Revision Petition by an Order dtd. 25/2/2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022.

3. The petitioner in C.R.P.No.423 of 2002 is the defendant in the above mentioned suit. The respondent/plaintiff filed the above said suit O.S.No.15 of 2020 against the defendant therein i.e., Smt.Dasari Siva Kumari, for recovery of an amount of Rs.21, 52, 000.00 on the strength of a Pronote dtd. 10/11/2017. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.221 of 2020 seeking conditional attachment of the petition schedule property before judgment. The learned Trial Court passed the following docket Order dtd. 25/2/2021:

"Heard the counsel for petitioner. Perused the petition and affidavit schedule filed along this petition. Since the counsel for respondent filed a memo stating that he has no counter and same is recorded. Considering the facts and circumstances of case, issue conditional attachment over the schedule mentioned property on payment of process by 10/3/2021."

Challenging the same, the present Revision Petitions came to be filed.

4. Heard Mr.J.Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in C.R.P.No.140 of 2022 and Mr.P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in C.R.P.No.423 of 2022. Also heard Mr.Tandava Yogesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff.

5. Drawing the attention of this Court to the various documents, the learned Senior Counsel, inter alia, submits that the Order under challenge is vitiated, as fraud was played on the Court. Referring to the Memo stated to have been filed on behalf of the defendant in O.S.No.15 of 2020, the learned counsel submits that in fact, no instructions or Vakalat was given to the counsel, who filed the said memo to the effect that "the defendant is reporting no counter" and "the I.A., may be allowed." He submits that the petitioner purchased the suit schedule property for a valuable consideration from the father of the defendant under a Registered GPA cum Agreement of Sale dtd. 19/4/2003, and that the property was delivered to the petitioner and he is in possession of the same. He also submits that initially one Kolleboyina Venkateswarlu filed O.S.No.385 of 2003 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, seeking Specific Performance of contract against one Pagadala Subba Rao, father of the petitioner in C.R.P.No.423 of 2022, that the petitioner in C.R.P.No.140 of 2022 was arrayed as defendant No.2 in the said suit and the same was dismissed on 12/3/2009. Aggrieved by which, an appeal was preferred in A.S.No.266 of 2009 and the appellate Court i.e., the III Additional District Judge, Guntur, by Judgment dtd. 30/7/2010, confirmed the order of the Trial Court. He also submits that aggrieved by the said orders, the matter was carried by way of Second Appeal in S.A.No.1363 of 2010 to this Court and the same was also dismissed on 25/8/2014 and on further appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed S.L.A.(C)No.7348 of 2015 vide Order dtd. 27/4/2015. He further submits that even the Review Petition in R.P.(C) No.3768 of 2016 in S.L.P.(C).No.14123 of 2015 was also dismissed by an Order dtd. 19/1/2017. He submits that during the pendency of the Second Appeal, the said Pagadala Subba Rao died and his legal heirs including the defendant in O.S.No.15 of 2020 were brought on record. The learned counsel submits that as the litigation with regard to the petition schedule property was finally set at naught by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as the petitioner is entitled for registration of Sale Deed by virtue of the Registered General Power of Attorney cum Agreement of Sale dtd. 19/4/2003, the legal heirs o