ORDER:

This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order, dated 01.12.2020, dismissing I.A.No.3 of 2017 in O.S.No.1 of 2017 on the file of the Court of XIII Additional District Judge, Gajuwaka, filed under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC seeking attachment of the petition schedule property before judgment if the respondents/defendants failed to furnish security or to comply the conditions of statutory notice under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.

2. Heard Sri G.Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and Sri S.V.R.Subramanyam, learned counsel for the respondent/defendants.

3. The petitioner is the plaintiff and he filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.40 lakhs based on a promissory note-cum-house security deed, dated 23.01.2015, executed agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The 1st respondent/1st defendant filed counter which is adopted by respondents 2 & 3/defendants 2 & 3. It is contended in the counter that there is no debtor and creditor relationship between the petitioner and the respondents and that the petitioner has no such capacity to lend such huge amount; that any transaction exceeding Rs.20,000/- shall be done through a negotiable instrument and that the suit document No.1 (promissory note) is hit by Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act as the contents of the document are prohibited by the provisions of the Income Tax Act,, Stamp Act and Registration Act; that Santhoshini who is the daughter of the 1st respondent was given in marriage to the son of the petitioner and there is a matrimonial dispute between them; that the Scotland police furnished a copy of the document relating to matrimonial dispute that took place on 19.02.2016; that subsequent to the incident, the petitioner filed the suit and interlocutory application on 03.01.2017 as a speculative litigation taking advantage of the situation in which the respondents/defendants are placed; that the has no territorial jurisdiction since the property in respect of which the relief is claimed is situated in Chodipally village in Atchuthapuram Mandal, whereas the case was filed before the District Court, at Gajuwaka; and that the respondents never intended to sell the property.

4. After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that the suit promissory note, security deed is inadmissible as per the provisions of the Stamp Act and Registration Act as it is not a simple promissory note but discharge of money lent under the document is secured by house property. It is further observed that the petitioner/plaintiff did not explain how the amount of Rs.40 lakhs cash was paid against the rules and further, in the light of the strained relationship, it is improbabale to hold prima facie that such huge amount of cash was given to the respondents by the petitioner in the absence of any material evidence in proof of passing of consideration. Thus, the Court is not satisfied with the material before the Court that the respondents had any intention to obstruct or delay the execution of the decree that may be passed against them and that they are about to dispose of the whole or any part of the petition schedule property. The revision petitioner contended that the suit document ought to have been considered by the trial Court and that the observation of the trial Court about the impropriety of lending money in view of the monetary disputes is incorrect as the suit document is dated

23.01.2015 whereas the dispute arose in February 2016.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court ought to have at least asked the respondents to furnish the security in view of no specific plea taken by the defendants disputing the execution of the suit document, except merely contending that there were matrimonial disputes and in such circumstances, the whole case of the petitioner/plaintiff cannot be ignored. He further submitted that mere denial of the respondents about t