1. The challenge in the revision is with regard to the refusal of an attachment before judgment in respect of immovable property which had been sought for by the present petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 66/99 of the Sub Court, Hosdurg.

2. The suit was filed alleging that the 1st plaintiff is a Trader at Anakuzhi; that the other plaintiffs are his children and that the 1st defendant, who was on inimical terms with the 1st plaintiff for the past so many years, at about 7.30 p.m. on 30.4.1999 lay in wait for the plaintiffs in a jeep bearing No. KL 13-A-2079 and launched a joint attack on the plaintiffs when they reached the scene of occurrence. It was alleged that lethal weapons like crow bar were used in the attack; that the 1st defendant masked his face at the time; and that in the course of the attack a sum of Rs. 22,000/- which was in the bag carried by the 1st plaintiff was also snatched away. The plaintiff also revealed in the plaint that Crime No. 224/99 of Hosdurg Police Station had been initiated against the defendants for the offences under S.395 and 397 of the I.P.C. The suit was laid for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards damages for the tortious acts of the defendants which necessitated expensive treatment for the plaintiffs.

3. The trial court found that there is no prima facie case established against the respondents and that the maintainability of the suit itself is doubtful, in view of the possibility of granting appropriate compensation under S.357 of the Cr.P.C. by the Criminal Court even if the petitioners could prove in the civil suit the involvement of the respondents in the tortious acts alleged in the plaint.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order is defective and that even if criminal case is pending, there is no bar for maintaining a suit of the present nature and that the refusal to grant the relief of attachment before judgment works out serious injustice.

5. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the damages that is claimed in the suit could be granted by the Criminal Court as compensation invoking S.357 of the Crl.P.C. and in view of the admission regarding pendency of the criminal case, the suit itself is not maintainable. Yet another argument advanced is that the revision also is not maintainable for the reason that the impugned order comes within the purview of 0.38 R.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure in which case it becomes appealable and hence a revision would not lie. On the merits also the suit is challenged for the reason that the damages claimed have no connection with any act of the defendants. The learned counsel also pointed out that in any event, the property of the 1st defendant alone cannot be attached, when the relief claimed is against all the defendants.

6. The first question to be considered in the case is the maintainability of the revision itself. Since an order under 0.38 R.6 of the C.P.C. is appealable in view of the specific provision in 0.43 R.1(q) of the Code of Civil Procedure, it has to be seen whether the impugned order is one passed under 0.38 R.6 of the C.P.C. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the trial court had not issued any interim order of attachment earlier. In other words, the impugned order is not one as per which an earlier order passed under 0.38 R.5 of the C.P.C. has been varied.

7. 0.38 R.5 of the C.P.C. provides that if the court is satisfied with regard to the availability of the grounds mentioned therein, it may direct the defendant, within a time to be fixed by it, earlier to furnish security, for 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 such security. Under sub-r. 3 of 0.38 R.5 the Court may also order conditional attachment of the w