% APHC010284002025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY. THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1364 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the Docket Order dt.06-05-2025 in I.A.No.345 of 2025 in O.S.No.08 of 2025 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge Court, Proddatur. Between; Sane Gurappa, S/o.Sane Narayana, Aged about 65 years, Occ. Business, R/o.Flat No.205. 3 rd Floor, R.R.Apartment, Katta.Gopavaram Panchayat, Proddatur Mandal, Kadapa District. Dwaraka Nagar, Kalva ...Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff AND Srinivasa Ceramic Tiles Pvt. Ltd.,CIN-U36990AP2017PTC107261, Rep by its Director, BellalaChowdaiah, S/o.Bellala Bala Chowdappa, Aged about 59 years, Occ. Business, Kadapa District. R/o. PeddaSettypalle Village, Proddatur Mandal ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendant lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Order XXXVIII Rules 5 & 6 of CPC r/w Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant conditional attachment of the petition schedule property with a show cause notice to the Respondent/Defendant to furnish third party sureties for the suit amount deposit the suit amount, suit costs and future interest to the satisfaction of the Hon’ble Court till disposal of the Civil Revision Petition. or Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V. NITESH Counsel for the Respondent: — The Court made the following ORDER: APHC010284002025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY.THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1364/2025 Between: Sane Gurappa ...PETITIONER AND Srinivasa Ceramic Tiles Pvt Ltd ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VNITESH Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1364/2025 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is preferred aggrieved by the order dated 06.05.2025 passed in I.A.No.345 of 2025 in O.S.No.08 of 2025 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge Court, Kadapa at Proddatur (in short “the trial Court”) and grant Conditional Attachment in favour of the petitioner herein. 2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondent herein is the defendant in the suit in O.S No.08 of 2025. The suit was filed by the plaintiff before the trial Court for grant of Conditional Attachment of the petition schedule property with a show cause notice to the respondent/defendant to furnish two third party sureties and for costs. The Suit was filed before the trail Court along with I.A.No.345 of 2025 under Order XXXVIII Rules 5 & 6 r/w Section 151 of CPC praying to grant conditional attachment against the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit. The plaintiff in his affidavit, clearly stated that the defendant is trying to alienate his only immovable property without discharging the suit debt amount. The said I.A was heard on 06.05.2025 and the trial Court has passed the following order: Issue urgent notice to the respondent on payment of process by 24.06.2025. ” 3. On a perusal of the above, it is observed that, when the suit was filed, it is not clear under what circumstances the matter was heard on 06.05.2025. Now the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the order dated 06.05.2025 in ordering urgent notice to the respondent. Heard Mr. V. Nitesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Perused the material on record. 4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the lower Court ought to have considered the urgency in the matter and that there is a threat of alienation of suit schedule property without discharging the suit debt amount. 5. It is pertinent to mention here Order 38 Rules 5 & 6 CPC is as follows. “5. Where defendant may be called upon to furnish security for (1) Where, at any stage of a suit, the Court is satisfied, by affidavit or otherwise, that the defendant, with intent to obstruct 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, when required, the said property or the value of the same, or such portion thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the decree, or to appear and show cause why he should not furnish security. production of property- or (2) The plaintiff shall, unless the court otherwise directs, specify the property required to be attached and the estimated value thereof. (3) The Court may also in the order direct the conditional attachment of the whole or any portion of the property so specified. (4) If an order of attachment is made without complying with the provisions of sub-rule (1) of this rule such attachment shall be void.] 6 . Attachment where cause not shown or security not furnished— (1) Where the defendant fails to show cause why he should not furnish security, or fails to furnish the security required, within the time fixed by the Court, the Court may order that the property specified, or such portion thereof as appears sufficient to satisfy any decree which may be passed in the suit, be attached. (2) Where the defendant shows such cause of furnishes the required security, and the property specified or any portion of it has been attached, the Court shall order the attachment to be withdrawn, or make such other order as it thinks fit. ” The above referred provisions enables the Court to direct the conditional attachment of the whole or any portion of the property of the respondent. The above provisions have been made with an intention to preserve the property as it is and to safeguard interests of both parties. When any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or where the defendant intends to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defrauding his creditors, the Court may direct conditional attachment of the respondent’s property, pending disposal of the suit. Of course, the plaintiff has to establish prima facie case. It becomes the duty of the Courts to examine whether there is any urgency in the matter 6. or not. The Courts should go through the averments made by the party in the supporting affidavit and also the pleadings and documents filed in support of 7. the case of the plaintiff. When a prima facie case is made out, the Courts must direct conditional attachment of the property, pending disposal of the suit. 8. The urgency of passing of orders under Order 38 Rule 5 & 6 CPC should be kept in mind. Even where the Court is not inclined to direct conditional attachment of the property or decides to issue urgent notice in that case also the Court should issue urgent notice and post the matter to a shortest date. The Court should examine what is the reasonable time required to serve the notice upon the respondents. Where the plaintiff undertakes to serve the notice within two or three days, the matter need not be adjourned to a longer date. It can be posted within four days or a week. When there is urgency in the matter the attitude of the Courts in posting the matter to a longer date, in fact defeat the purpose of Order 38 Rule 5 & 6 CPC. 9. The purpose of issuing urgent notice in Courts is address situations requiring immediate action, such as, imminent danger or threats to safety, the potential financial loss or risk of violative legal right ensuring legal system can respond that to intervene strictly in situations where irreparable harm and justice and crucial for safeguarding rights of the individual who are facing immediate threats or potential harm and further enable legal system to respond to ensure the justice is served in a timely manner, so in view of the same, urgent notice issued and usually adjourned the matter. Accordingly in this case the trial Court has issued urgent notice and the matter has been usually adjourned for approximately two months is not proper, moreover it is defeating the purpose of urgent notice. 10. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that there is no need to issue notice to the respondent in the present civil revision petition and this Court is inclined to dispose of the present civil revision petition at the stage of admission. 11. Accordingly, the II Additional District Judge, Kadapa, is directed to issue notice to the respondent/defendant or their counsel and advance the any date within a period of seven (07) days from the date of the matter to receipt of a copy of this order and hear the matter and pass appropriate reasoned orders within a period of two (02) months, thereafter, in accordance with law after affording opportunity to both parties. 12. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if petition shall stand closed. any, pending in the writ Sd/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// N OFFICER SE To, Additional District Judge Court, Proddatur. 1. Then Sri V. Nitesh, Advocate [OPUC] 2. OneCCto 3. Two CD Copies Chp HIGH COURT DATED:27/06/2025 ORDER CRP NO. 1364 OF 2025 S ?tm2l)25 9 'i..^ , Current Seciion DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS