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 RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS: 1386 AND 1389 OF 2025 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1386 OF 2025 APHC010298632025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the Order dt; 21.03.2025 passed in (G.L.No.1096) I.A.No. 25 in I.A.No. 203 of 2025 in O.S.No. 343 of 2025 on the file of the court of the V Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Division) at Vijayawada. Between: Rangisetti Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Venkateswara Rao, age 43 Years, working as Driver. R/o Door No. 1-117, Cheruvumadhavaram Village and Post. G konduru Mandal, NTR District-521229 ...PETITIONER/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT AND Tatavarthi Satyanarayana, S/o Brahammaya, Sathyanarayanapuram. Vijayawada, Vijayawada Urban, NTR District. (The descriptive Particulars were not Known to the Petitioner, Since the bailiff not served any papers except warrant of the attachment) ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1389 OF 2025 APHC010298642025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the Order dt: 21.03.2025 passed in (G.L.No.1097) I.A.No. 725 in I.A.No. 203 of 2025 in O.S.No. 343 of 2025 on the file of the court of the V Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Division) at Vijayawada. Between: Rangisetti Srinivasa Rao, S/o Venkateswara Rao, age 43 Years, working as Driver, R/o.DoorNo. 1-117, Cheruvumadhavaram Village and Post, G konduru Mandal, NTR District-521229 ...PETITIONER/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT AND Tatavarthi Satyanarayana, S/o Brahammaya, Sathyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada, Vijayawada Urban, NTR District. (The descriptive Particulars were not Known to the Petitioner, Since the bailiff not served any papers except warrant of the attachment) ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF : SRI DR D VENKATA RAMANA REDDY Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for the Respondent: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following ORDER : % APHC010298632025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3299] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs: 1386 and 1389 of 2025 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1386/2025 Between: 1.RANGISETTI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O.VENKATESWARA RAO, AGE 43 YEARS, WORKING AS DRIVER, R/O DOOR NO. 1-117, CHERUVUMADHAVARAM VILLAGE AND POST, G KONDURU MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT- 521229 |i ...PETITIONER AND 1. TATAVARTHI SATYANARAYAN A, Sathyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada, NTR District. (The descriptive Particulars were not Known to the Petitioner, Since the bailiff not served any papers except warrant of the attachment) , S/o Brahammaya, Vijayawada Urban, ...RESPONDENT 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 toThe above named Petitioner begs to present this Memorandum of grounds in Civil Revision Petition having been aggrieved by the Order 21.03.2025 passed in ( G.L.NO.1096) lA.NO. 25 in I.A.No. 203 of 2025 in O.S.No. 343 of 2025 on the file of the court of the V Additional District Judge, (JD) at Vijayawada 2 Counsel for the Petitioner; VENKATA RAMANA REDDY 1.DRD Counsel for the Respondent: 1. pf\/i<;1QN PFTITION NO: 1389/2025 sToT ’o’ 'rr''Kr'„s»c,- CIVIL Between: 1.RANG1SETT1 RAO, 521229 ...PETITIONER AND i.tatavarthi satyanarayana, Sathyanarayanapuram, j were not Known ^^'te\arn^se^e. any pape. except warrant of the attachment) Brahammaya, S/o ...RESPONDENT Artirle 227 of the Constitution of India,praying Petition under Article 22r grounds filed herein,the that in the circumstances above-named Petitioner begs High Court may be arounds in Civil Revision Petition (ID) at Vijayawada Counsel for the Petitioner: VENKATA RAMANA REDDY 1.DRD Counsel for the Respondent; SAM 3 1. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri Dr.D.Venkata Rama Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the Civil Revision Petitions. 2. The petitioner in the aforesaid Civil Revision Petitions is the defendant in O.S.No.343 of 2025 in the Court of V Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Vijayawada, filed by the plaintiff/respondent. The suit was filed for recovery of the suit amount based on the promissory note. In the aforesaid suit, the plaintiff/respondent also filed I.A.No.203 of 12025, for attachment before Judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C. attachment 3. The trial Court passed the conditional order dated 13.03.2025, directing the respondent/defendant to furnish the security equal to the suit amount within a specified time from the date of receipt of notice, failing which it was provided further that the petition schedule property shall be attached subject to the provisions of Section 60 C.P.C and the notice was issued to the defendant fixing the date, 14.05.2025. 4 V 4. The defendant/appellant appeared in suit and filed counter. He also filed G.L.No.1097 dated 21.03.2025 in I.A.No.203 of 2025, to advance the date from 14.04.2025 to that day or to any other date. He further filed G.L.No.1096 dated 21.03.2025 requesting the Court to recall the warrant till the disposal of I.A.No.203 of 2025. G.L.No.1096 has been rejected by order dated 21.03.2025 and challenging the same, C.R.P.No.1386 of 2025 has been filed. G.L.No.1097 has also been rejected by the and challenging order dated 21.03.2025 C.R.P.No.1389 of 2025 has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that those applications deserved to be allowed and the matter ought to have been preponed and the warrant should have been recalled. Learned counsel for the petitioner, could not point out which provision of law, specifically, provides for recall of the warrant issued under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C, while passing the conditional order of attachment, referring to Section 151 C.P.C. only, specifically deals with the attachment before Judgment, down a specific procedure for passing the order under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C by the Court on being satisfied, by affidavit or the same. 5. 6. The applications were filed Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C. It lays T A r' 5 otherwise, that the defendant, with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against him, is about or is about to to dispose of the whole or any part of his property any part of his property from the local limits direct the defendant, furnish security, in such remove the whole or of the Court. Then it may of the jurisdiction to be fixed by it either to be specified in the order to produce and piaoe at the the said property or the be sufficient to within a time sum as may disposal of the value of the same, or satisfy the decree, or to appear Court, when required such portion thereof as may why he should and show cause not furnish security. , there is no challenge Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C. that where the should not furnish security, In the present Civil Revision Petitions 7. of attachment passed under 6 of C.P.C. provides to the order Order 38 Rule fails to show cause why he 8. defendant within the time fixed by the specified, or such decree which furnish the security required order that the property or fails to Court, the Court may portion thereof as appears sufficient to satisfy any may be passed in the suit be attached. submitted that Rule 5 C.P.C, the petitioner has counsel for the petitioner Learned 9. pursuant to the order passed under 6 has already filed the objections and those objections are said to be pending. Consequently, this Court finds that the trial Court is proceeding as per the provisions of Order 35 Rules 5 and 6 C.P.C. There appears to be no illegality in the orders passed in the G.L.Nos.1096 and 1097 dated 21.03.2025 impugned in these Civil Revision Petitions. The procedure prescribed is not for the recall of the warrant but either to furnish the security or if not satisfied with the conditional order under Rule 5 C.P.C. to file the objections. As the objections are already pending, the would be disposed of by the learned Trial Court in accordance with law, on the date fixed in the suit or on an early date if it is not so possible on the date already fixed. 10. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed, but with the observations made herein above. No order as to costs. same As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. SD/- A.VENUGOPALA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR h ■u- //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The V Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Division) at Vijayawada, Krishna District. One CC to Sri DR D Venkata Ramana Reddy Advocate [OPUC] The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi Three CD Copies 2. 3. 4. SAM TAC HIGH COURT DATED:27/06/2025 COMMON ORDER CRP Nos. 1386 & 1389 of 2025 sT 2nEP 2025 U o» DISMISSING THESE CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS SAM TAG