The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for strict proof of allegations and the need for courts to consider the relationship between the parties and the evidence supporting claims before ordering attachment before judgment.

1. A litigation - a nascent one-between two traders in two different States, one in far off South, the State of Kerala, and the other, very much in the North, the State of Haryana, has given rise to this Revision petition. It relates to an attachment before judgment ordered by the Sub Court, Calicut at the instance of the plaintiff-firm against the defendants-revision petitioners in respect of 8 waggons of rice in the railway yard of the Calicut Station. That such a hotly fought out litigation should not linger longer in the City of Calicut, with its legendary history of honesty and hospitality which had attracted many a trader, indigenous and international, centuries back, was keenly felt, even when the matter was vigorously argued. Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Revision petitioners and Advocate General appearing for the respondent-plaintiff, promptly responded to a suggestion from the court for endeavouring an amicable settlement The heart of the fight was perhaps so intense that conciliation efforts did not fructify. This Court has then necessarily to resolve the issue, as best as it can.

2. The facts of the litigation have to be stated as they are revealed from the pleadings of the plaintiff. I have eschewed the disputations of the pleadings by the defendants for the purpose of this Revision; for, I felt that the Advocate-General was correct in his submission that if any disputed question of fact is to be adjudicated, that would better be done by the court before whom the defendants would have an opportunity to plead fully their case and substantiate it with evidence in their possession. Thus, I have to consider whether the jurisdictional conditions for ordering such an attachment have been made out, proceeding entirely on the basis of the averments contained in the affidavit in support of the application for attachment.

3. The learned Advocate-General appearing for the respondent took a preliminary objection that the order is not revisable at all, as according to him, the order does not amount to a 'case decided' and consequently S.115 CPC. is not attracted. He, however, did not pursue the point, in the course of his arguments; nor did he elaborate the same or seek to support his submissions with reference to statutory provisions or judicial decisions. The order sought to be revised is one which involves serious adverse civil consequences as regards the defendant. Such consequences will justify a conclusion that the order is a case decided within the meaning of S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, going by the principles gatherable in relation to the interpretation of that term. The decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Y. Vijayalakshmamma v. Y. Lakshmaiah & Sons (AIR. 1980 A. P. 176), where the High Court interfered in revision in similar circumstances justifies my approach and conclusion on this aspect. I overrule the contention of the respondent that the order is unamenable to revisional correction for the alleged reason that it is not a'case decided' See also AIR 1972 Rajasthan 141.

4. Some facts are not disputed; and they are: There had been dealings between the plaintiff and the defendants, in the words of the plaintiff, "for the last few years". The plaintiff has admitted that "the defendant has influence and facility available on the locality from where the rice is to be removed and transported to Calicut for the plaintiff.

5. The Haryana State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. called for tenders for the sale of rice. The plaintiff submitted the tenders. The tender dated 2-9-1981 was accepted. It related to the purchase of 1,800 metric tonnes of I. R.8 sella Rice from Pundri at the rate of Rs. 197.78 quintal godown. On the confirmation of the sale, the Haryana Society issued a sale order dated 4-9-1981 calling upon the plaintiff to pay further amounts on the basis of the accepted tender. According to the plaintiff "the Marketing Federation always insisted for a local par