ORDER :

GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J.

Heard Sri P. Venkata Rama Sarma, learned Counsel for the Civil Revision Petitioner and Sri S. Krishna Reddy, learned Counsel representing Sri Ineni Venkata Prasad, learned Counsel for the Respondent.

2. The Plaintiff herein has filed a Suit for Recovery of Rs.2,48,958/- bearing O.S.No.85 of 2022 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Madakasira. The Plaintiff has filed I.A.No.214 of 2025 seeking attachment of about nine properties. The schedule of the properties is found in I.A.No.214 of 2025. The sole Defendant therein had filed Counter-affidavit.

3. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Madakasira, vide Order dated 15.04.2025 was pleased to dismiss the Interlocutory Application bearing I.A.No.214 of 2025. The reasoning given by the learned Civil Judge for dismissing I.A.No.214 of 2025 in O.S.No.85 of 2022 was that the Plaintiff ought to have proceeded with the case by producing the other witnesses for examination instead of moving an Application of this nature.

4. The facts on record also indicate that, vide order dated 14.06.2023, the sole Defendant was set ex parte on the ground that the Written Statement had not been filed by the Defendant within time. The Defendant had filed an Application on 03.07.2023 under Order IX Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code trying to set aside the ex parte Order and to further permit him to defend the case. Since the Written Statement was enclosed with the Petition filed by the Defendant, the Plaintiff, in good faith, reported no opposition, thereby permitting the Defendant to defend his case and also to file the Written Statement. Thereafter, PW.1 was examined-in-chief on 04.12.2024, and cross-examination was also conducted on 25.09.2025.

5. The above facts indicate that the Plaintiff/Petitioner was not causing any delay in the matter, and at some stage of the Suit Proceedings, the Plaintiff thought it prudent to secure the interest of the Plaintiff by having the properties attached. It is settled law that in Money Suits, the Claimant is always entitled to secure the property by way of attachment to ensure that the Defendant is prevented from alienating the property, as it is common knowledge that attempts would be made by Defendants to defeat the interest of the Plaintiff by alienating the property and creating third-party rights.

6. Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is usefully extracted hereunder:

Attachment before judgment

5. Where defendant may be called upon to furnish security for production of property— (1) Where, at any stage of a suit, the Court is satisfied, by affidavit or otherwise, that the defendant, with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against him,—

(a) is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property, or

(b) is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court,

the Court may direct the defendant, within a time to be fixed by it, either to furnish security, in such sum as may be specified in the order, to produce and place at the disposal of the Court, when required, the said property or the value of the same, or such portion thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the decree, or to appear and show cause why he should not furnish security.

(2) The plaintiff shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, specify the property required to be attached and the estimated value thereof.

(3) The Court may also in the order direct the conditional attachment of the whole or any portion of the property so specified.

1[(4) If an order of attachment is made without complying with the provisions of sub-rule (1) of this rule, such attachment shall be void.]

7. The Plaintiff/Revision Petitioner herein has specifically averred in the Affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.214 of 2025 in O.S.No.85 of 2022 and the same is as under:

“Yesterday, I came to know that the defendant is trying to alienate his petition schedule property