( 1 ) THIS Court ordered Notice before Admission on 17-11-2005 and granted an order of interim suspension. Sri M. N. Narasimha Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondent had entered appearance.

( 2 ) THE petitioner aggrieved by an order made in C. M. A. No. 65/2004 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, warangal, confirming the order made in IA. No. 501/2003 in O. S. No. 269/2003 on the file of n Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal had preferred the present civil revision petition.

( 3 ) THE respondent/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of Rs. 2,78,022/- with other ancillary reliefs praying for passing of a preliminary decree in relation to the mortgaged property shown in the plaint schedule. The respondent herein as plaintiff, moved two applications i. e. , i. A. No. 500/2005 and I. A. No. 501/2005 in the aforesaid suit praying for temporary injunction restraining the revision petitioner/ respondent/defendant from causing any damage to the suit property and from removing any structure, demolition and changing the physical features of the property till the disposal of the suit and also yet another relief under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as "code" for the purpose of convenience) to safeguard his rights for realisation of the decretal amount in the event of a decree being passed with a further request directing the revision petitioner/defendant to furnish security. The Court of first instance having marked exs. P-1 to P-9 and on appreciation of the facts and circumstances arrived at the conclusion that both the reliefs as prayed for to be granted. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent in the said applications, defendant in the suit, preferred C. M. A. Nos. 64 and 65 of 2004 on the file of iv Additional District Judge, Warangal and the learned Judge allowed C. M. A. No. 64/ 2004 setting aside the order made in i. A. No. 500/2003, thus disallowing the temporary injunction granted by the Court of first instance, but however dismissed c. M. A. No. 65/2004 wherein attachment before judgment of the plaint schedule house had been ordered inasmuch as security had not been furnished. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred.

( 4 ) SRI S. Ramachandra Prasad, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner would maintain that the suit itself is based on a mortgage and a preliminary decree in relation to the plaint schedule property had been prayed for. When already security is there it is peculiar that attachment before judgment had been ordered. The learned Counsel also would comment that the object of Order XXXVIII rule 5 of the Code may have to be kept in mind by Courts while ordering attachment before judgment. No acceptable material had been placed before the Court of first instance to order attachment before judgment. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties and would maintain that the truth or otherwise of the defence take in the written statement may have to be gone into at the appropriate stage. On that ground alone the appellate Court arrived at a wrong conclusion and had confirmed the order of the Court of first instance ordering attachment before judgment. The learned Counsel also placed string reliance on a decision of this Court in avinash Constructions, Secunderabad v. P. Usha Rao, 2004 (4) ALD 698.

( 5 ) PER contra, Sri M. N. Narasimha reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondent/plaintiff would maintain that it is no doubt true that the suit is based on the strength of a mortgage and a preliminary decree was prayed for. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed by the revision petitioner/defendant and would maintain that in the light of the stand taken by the revision petitioner, the learned Judge having appreciated all the facts and circumstances ordered conditional attachment affording opportuni

Click Here to Read the rest of this document