APHC010585992025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 742/2025 Between: 1. NAMINENI VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O. ADI SESHAIAH, AGED 53 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. D NO. 6 3RD FLOOR, PADMAVATHI NAGAR, 0PP. AVINASH HOSPITAL, KHAIRATHABAD, HYDERABAD 1. KILARI SUBRAHMANYAM NAIDU, S/o. Venkata Subbaiah Aged 54 years, Occ. Business R/o. Flat No. 2 Layout, Nellore City SPSR Nellore District Appeal Under Section_____against orderspleased and set aside the order passed in lA No. 790 of 2025 in OS No. 94 of 2025, On the file of the Principal District Judge Court SPSR Nellore dated 09 IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying th in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to dispense with the Certified Copy of the order dated 09 passed in lA No. 790 of 2025 in OS No. 94 of 2025, on the file of District Judge Court SPSR Nellore condone pending above CRP, in the interest of Justice and pass IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 742/2025 NAMINENI VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O. ADI SESHAIAH, AGED 53 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. D NO. 6-3-595/34, FLAT NO. 50, 3RD FLOOR, PADMAVATHI NAGAR, 0PP. AVINASH HOSPITAL, HYDERABAD-500004 ...APPELLANT AND KILARI SUBRAHMANYAM NAIDU, S/o. Venkata Subbaiah Aged 54 years, Occ. Business R/o. Flat No. 2-A, Vaibhav Enclave Magunta Layout, Nellore City SPSR Nellore District ...RESPONDENT Section_____against orderspleased and set aside the order passed in lA No. 790 of 2025 in OS No. 94 of 2025, On the file of the Principal District Judge Court SPSR Nellore dated 09-10-2025 pass Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to dispense with the Certified Copy of the order dated 09 passed in lA No. 790 of 2025 in OS No. 94 of 2025, on the file of the Principal District Judge Court SPSR Nellore condone pending above CRP, in the interest of Justice and pass IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3524] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM NAMINENI VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O. ADI SESHAIAH, AGED 53 595/34, FLAT NO. 50, 3RD FLOOR, PADMAVATHI NAGAR, 0PP. AVINASH HOSPITAL, ...APPELLANT KILARI SUBRAHMANYAM NAIDU, S/o. Venkata Subbaiah Aged 54 A, Vaibhav Enclave Magunta ...RESPONDENT Section_____against orderspleased and set aside the order passed in lA No. 790 of 2025 in OS No. 94 of 2025, On the file of the 2025 pass at in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to dispense with the Certified Copy of the order dated 09-10- 2025, the Principal District Judge Court SPSR Nellore condone pending above CRP, in the IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the order dated 09-10-2025 passed in lA No. 790 ot 2025 in OS No. 94 of 2025, on the file of the Principal District Judge Court SPSR Nellore and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. M P V N V SASTRI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 742/2025 JUDGMENT: (per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J) Heard Sri M.P.V.N.V.Sastry, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record. 2. The appellant is the defendant in O.S.No.94 of 2025 pending before the Court of the Principal District Judge, Nellore. The suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent for recovery of money of Rs.83,00,000/- from the appellant. In the said suit the plaintiff filed I.A.No.790 of 2025 for attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC. In the said application, learned Court has directed the defendant/appellant to furnish security for the suit claim within a specified time after receipt of notice, failing which the petition schedule property shall be attached. The order of conditional attachment was passed fixing 10.11.2025 as next date. Challenging the said order present CMA has been filed under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant filed application to prepone the date but the said application was rejected and the suit stands for 10.11.2025. He further submits that the source of information was not disclosed in the affidavit of plaintiff in support of IA as to how the plaintiff came to know that the defendant was going to dispose of or transfer the property. 4. We have considered the aforesaid submissions. The order under challenge has been passed under order 38 Rule 5, the appellant has been granted opportunity to furnish the security. Under Rule 5, if the appellant does not want to furnish the security he may file the objections to the application and on filing of such objections, the same has to be decided by the Court concerned. The appellant has such opportunity. He has also appeared before the Trial Court and filed an application for preponment of the date but has not filed any objections to the application seeking attachment. So far as the contention with respect to the source of information of the plaintiff in the affidavit is concerned, the matter is still pending before the learned Trial Court for passing the final orders. We find that the Court has considered the affidavit filed in support of the application as also the third party affidavit to arrive at the satisfaction for passing the conditional order under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC. 5. Further, in case of failure by the appellant to furnish the security and satisfy the Court as to why the order should not be passed, objection is to be filed, which, in that case, is required to be considered by the Court concerned for passing final orders under Order 38 Rule 6 CPC. 6. Additionally, as per Section 104 and Order 43 Rule 1 CPC an appeal shall lie only from the orders specified under those provisions. The appeal against the order passed under Order 38 Rule 6 CPC is provided under clause (q), but not against the order passed under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC. The present appeal is therefore not maintainable. 7. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. However, it is open for the appellant to file the objections before the learned Trial Court or to furnish the security in accordance with law. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM,J Dated:06.11.2025 AG 146 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 742/2025 Dated:06.11.2025 AG