COMMON ORDER

These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed to set aside the order, dated 25.08.2020 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Karur, in I.A.Nos.637, 639 & 641 of 2019 in O.S.No.147 to 149 of 2019.

2.The revision petitioner herein/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.Nos.

147, 148 & 149 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Court, Karur. During the pendency of the above suits, the revision petitioner herein/plaintiff has filed three interlocutory applications in three suits in I.A.Nos.637, 639 & 641 of 2019 in O.S.Nos.147, 148 & 149 of 2019.

3.The learned Principal District Judge, Karur, has passed a common order, dated 25.08.2020 in I.A.Nos.637, 639 & 641 of 2019 in O.S.Nos.147, 148 & 149 of 2019 is as follows:

“In the result, the security furnished by the respondent is hereby accepted. Further, the respondent is directed not to alienate or encumber or create any mode of transfer pending suit and the petition is closed.”

4. The issues in these Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same and therefore, common order is passed.

5. Heard Mr.Srinivasa Ragavan for Mr.K.Prabhakar, learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Mathiyalagan, appearing for the respondents.

Perused the material documents available on record.

6. The revision petitioner/plaintiff has filed three suits in O.S.Nos.147, 148 & 149 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Court, karur, for recovery of money due on three pronotes executed by the 2nd defendant on behalf of 1st defendant with the consent of 3rd defendant.

7. The revision petitioner herein/plaintiff has filed three petitions in I.A.Nos.637, 639 & 641 of 2019 under Order 38 Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code to attach the schedule mentioned properties before Judgment. In all the three petitions the schedule of properties are same.

8.The 1st respondent/2nd defendant has filed a memo in each petitions in I.A.Nos.637, 639 & 641 of 2019 in which he furnished alternative property for security. The schedule of property mentioned in those memos are same property.

9.The Court below has accepted the security furnished by the defendant in the memo and directed the defendant not to alienate the property during the pendency of the suit and with the above observations the I.A.Nos. 637, 639 & 641 of 2019 were closed on 25.08.2020. Aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court.

10.The following issues are to be decided in these Civil Revision Petitions:

1.Whether the Civil Revision Petition is maintainable against the order under Order 38 Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code?

2.Whether the respondents herein can offer different properties other than the plaintiffs claimed?

3.Whether the value of properties offered by the respondents is sufficient for the amount claimed in the suit?

11.Issue No.1 : Admittedly, only Civil Appeals are lie against the order passed under Order 38 Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code, as per law.

But, in the case on hand no order of attachment before Judgment was passed. On the other hand, the Court below has simply accepted the security offered by the defendants.

12.The relevant portion of the Judgment reported in 2020 SCC Online Ker 4412 (FB) in the case of Sadasivan Vs.Surendradas, is extracted hereunder:

.....

“74. Notwithstanding that in Pareed Master and Saseendran, elaborate legal reasons are not mentioned for entering a finding that Order XXXVIII Rule 6(2) of the Code cannot apply to a case where there was no conditional attachment of the whole or any portion of property or in other words, Order XXXVIII Rule 6(2) is not intended to cover cases in which defendant successfully showed cause against attachment before Judgment, in which no conditional attachment order under Order XXXVIII Rule 5(3) of the Code has been granted, we agree with the views taken in the decisions. We answer the reference affirming the views in Pareed Master and Saseendran.

75.We find that the appeal aga