ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 28.11.2023, passed in I.A.No.193 of 2021 in O.S.No.69 of 2021 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mancherial.

2. O.S.No.69 of 2021 is filed by petitioner/plaintiff for recovery of amount of Rs.20,00,000/-. During the pendency of the Suit, I.A.No.193 of 2021 is filed by petitioner/plaintiff under Order 38 Rule 5 of C.P.C r/w. Section 151 of C.P.C to direct the respondent/defendant to furnish security for the suit amount of Rs.20 lakhs. The trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides dismissed the application on 28.11.2023. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the petitioner herein preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the trial Court erroneously dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner herein under Order 38 Rule 5 r/w Section 151 of C.P.C to direct the respondent/defendant to furnish security for the suit amount of Rs.20 lakhs and if she fails, to direct the garnishee of her i.e., Mandal Educational Officer, Nennel to withhold the salary benefits of respondent/defendant. It is open to the Court to look to the conduct of the parties immediately before suit and to examine the surrounding circumstances and to draw an inference as to whether the defendant is about to dispose of the property and if so, with what intention. The Court is entitled to consider the nature of the claim and the defense put forward. Therefore, requested this Court to set aside the order of the trial Court.

5. Petitioner/Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of amount of Rs.20 lakhs with interest @ 1% per month. Petitioner/Plaintiff and respondent/defendant are acquaintance with each other from 20 years, as such defendant borrowed Rs.16 lakhs with interest from the petitioner for her personal and family necessities.

Respondent/defendant issued the banker cheque bearing No.077699, dated 11.01.2021 drawn on IDBI Bank, Mancherial Branch in favour of petitioner/plaintiff. Petitioner/plaintiff presented the said cheque in State Bank of India, Main Branch, Mancherial on 11.01.2021. The bank authorities returned the dishonored cheque with return memo dated 13.01.2021 with an endorsement “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT” to the petitioner/plaintiff.

Petitioner came to know that respondent is going to take voluntary retirement from her services. Petitioner got issued legal notice dated 16.01.2021 through his counsel and the notice was served upon the respondent/defendant but she did not pay the amount, as such the petitioner filed the suit.

6. In the counter filed by respondent/defendant, she stated that she is Singareni employee and she is having 15 years of service and reputed person in the society. She did not borrow any amount from the petitioner/plaintiff or any person. Petitioner created the alleged promissory note and filed false suit. Therefore, requested to dismiss the application.

7. The main contention of the petitioner is respondent borrowed an amount of Rs.16 lakhs and as such she filed suit for suit recovery of an amount of Rs.20 lakhs with interest and petitioner came to know that respondent/defendant is going to take voluntary retirement as such, petitioner filed I.A.No.193 of 2021 to direct the respondent/defendant to furnish security for the suit amount of Rs.20 lakhs and if she fails, to direct the garnishee of her i.e., Mandal Educational Officer, Nennel to withhold the salary benefits of respondent/defendant. But the respondent stated that still she is having 15 years of service, as such the question of taking voluntary retirement does not arise.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner relied upon a decision in Surender Singh Bajaj Vs Kitty Steels Limited and Another 1 , in which the relevant provision of Sub-Section(1) of Section 60 reads as follows:

“60. Property liabl