THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1924 OF 2025

ORDER:

This civil revision petition is filed with the following prayer:

“… begs to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition having been aggrieved by the Order dated 21.4.2025 passed in I.A.No.155 of 2021 in O.S.No.85 of 2021 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge at Wanaparthy for the following grounds among other …”

2. Heard Mr. V.Hanmanth Rao, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. M.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for respondents.

3. A suit bearing O.S.No.85 of 2021 was filed in the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge at Wanaparthy, for recovery of amount of Rs.5,00,000/- taken as loan on 13.03.2019 by executing a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff/revision petitioner. Another amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was also taken as hand loan on 20.03.2019 from plaintiff by executing a promissory note. Petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.155 of 2021 under Order 38 Rule 5 for attachment before judgment, the property sought for attachment is a house bearing No.44-127 (125 sq.yards)

situated at Ramnagar, Wanaparthy Town.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for revision petitioner/plaintiff that a petition under Order 38 Rule 5 for attachment of property can be made at any point of time, when respondents/defendants who are due to pay the amount (of Rs.11,00,000/-) is trying to dispossess/sell the property and hence, has sought for attachment of the said property as a precautionary measure to safeguard the interest.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submitted that suit is filed in year 2021 and petitioner sought attachment of property after 4 years and the defendants/respondents have not sold the property for the last 4 years. It is further submitted that by the application, revision petitioner/plaintiff is trying to get the property attached as security on a mere assumption that defendant is trying to sell the property without any sufficient cause or reason. It is also submitted that respondent No.1/defendant is a Pharmacist in the district Area Hospital, Wanaparthy and revision petitioner/plaintiff has the option to get salary attached, if at all, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff. It is also submitted that if the plaintiff makes an application before the Court, respondents/defendants are willing to give an undertaking to the Court.

6. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the submissions.

7. A petition under Order 38 Rule 5 is made seeking attachment of house bearing No.44-127 (an extent of 125 sq. yards) situated at Ramnagar, Wanaparthy Town, on the ground that the respondents are trying to dispose off/sell the property to escape the liability and to avoid the suit amount. Petitioner/plaintiff also submits that respondents are trying to delay the execution of the decree that may be passed.

8. From the record, it is observed that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are wife and husband and respondent No.1 is a Government employee working as a Pharmacist in the area Hospital, Wanaparthy, Revision petitioner/plaintiff has lent money on interest with the mediation of one Ramprasad of Health Department. Two promissory notes were executed by the respondents for amounts of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.6,00,000/- respectively. Respondents case is that they paid an amount of Rs.4,60,000/- and requested further time for payment of money. The relevant portion of the order held as follows:

“In this connection, the amounts in the Pro Notes and Cheques are appeared to be the same. But this aspect has to be dealt after the full-fledged trial whether the amount appear under the Pro Notes and Cheques are one and the same and issued in relation to the same transactions or not. Further, the Petitioner Council relied upon Ex.P4 i.e., the sale deed in which the vendee is the Respondent No.1 and which reflects that the Petition Schedule Property belongs to the Respondent No.1 and also the Ex.P3 which is the