1. The Miscellaneous First Appeal and the Revision Petition by defendant No. 1 are directed against the order dated 16-2-1983, passed by the Civil Judge, Bhadravathi, in O. S. 10/83, ordering attachment of moveables before judgment.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit against defendants 1 and 2 to recover Rs. 43,74,821.30 as the price of the sale of stainless steel flats to defendant No. 1. After filing the suit on 16-2-1983, the plaintiff filed the application under O.38, R.5 C.P.C. seeking attachment of the moveables of defendant No. 1 before judgment alleging that defendant No. 1 with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of the decree that may be passed against him, is trying to dispose of his property.

3. The Court below after hearing the plaintiff's counsel issued ex parte order of attachment of the moveables under O.38, R.5. The defendant No. 1 being aggrieved by the said ex parte order of attachment of the movables, initially filed the Misc. Appeal. However, as a matter of precaution and in view of the ruling reported in Narayana Rao v. Kasturi, ILR (1973) Mys 497, defendant No. 4 filed the revision also. Hence both the matters have come up for hearing today.

4. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Krishnamurthi contended that the order of attachment before judgment passed on 16-2-1983 was in violation of the mandatory requirements laid down by O.38, R.5 C.P.C. According to him, it was an order passed by the court below without jurisdiction.

5. Sri. Srinivasan learned counsel for respondent No. 1 at this stage submitted that the application was also under S.151 and S.136 C.P.C. When there is a specific provision made, S.151 will not come into play at all. Therefore, the mention of S.151 C.P.C. in I.A. 1 is redundant and meaningless. S.136 C.P.C. lays down the procedure to be followed when the property to be attached is situate outside the district. Therefore, this submission in this connection merits to be rejected.

6. The order passed by the Court below on 16-2-1983 reads as :
"I.A. 1. Sri H.R.R. Advocate for plaintiff has filed an application along with affidavit under O.38, R.5 read with S.151 and S.136 C.P.C. praying for an order of attachment before judgment of the properties listed in the application itself, for the reasons set out in the accompanying affidavit.
I.A. No. II. The said advocate for plaintiff has filed another application with memo of facts and praying to hand over the orders passed on I. A. No. 1 i.e. Attachment Warrant to the plaintiff for delivery to the concerned Court for effecting the attachment of properties detailed in the Schedule of I.A. No. 1.
Heard Sri H.R.R. on I.A. Nos. 1 and 2. The properties of defendant No. 1 mentioned in the schedule in I.A. No. 1 are ordered to be attached conditionally, in case defendant No. 1 fails to furnish security in a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only). Issue notice of I.A. No. 1 to defendant No. 1 along with warrant of attachment and suit summons to defendant No. 2, if P.P. is paid, by 14-3-1983.
I.A. No. 2 is allowed. Attachment warrant and copy of I.A. No. 1 are ordered to be handed over to the plaintiff for delivery of the same to the court of the District Judge, Thana (Maharashtra State) for execution of the serve through Central Nazir of that Court by 14-3-1983."
(It appears that the word "served' is wrongly typed in the certified copy. It ought to be 'same'.)

7. O.38, R.5 reads :
"(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,