This revision petition arises from the judgment and order dated 13.6.1986 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge (I), Gauhati, in Money Suit No. 55 of 1986. 2. In Money Suit No. 55 of 1986, the plaintiff has filed an application dated 1.4.1986 (petition No. 2080) under O. 38, R. 5, CPC for attachment before judgment of the grant-in-aid amounts lying with the Director of Cultural Affairs, Gauhati. The letter dated 3.5.1986 from the Director of Cultural Affa­irs, Assam addressed to M/S. Chitra Pratisthan (defendant) shows that the Government have sanctioned an amount of Rs. 1,31,300/-. When the proceeding under O. 38, R. 5, CPC was about to be concluded the plaintiff filed another petition dated 24.5.1986 (petition No. 3302) under O. 39, R. 7, CPC, inter alia for an order to release the said sum of Rs. 1,31, 300/- in favour of the plaintiff, or for an order for detention, preservation and/or withholding the said amount. The learned Judge disposed of the two petitions by a composite order dated 13.6.1986 which is impugned in this petition. 3. The order under O.38, R. 5, CPC is appealable under 0.43, R. 1(q), CPC which provides that an appeal shall lie from an order under Rule 2, Rule 3 or Rule 6 of Order 38. O. 33, R.1(q) provides that an appeal shall lie from an order under Rule 1, Rule 2, Rule 2A, Rule 4 or Rule 10 of Order 39. Therefore, an order under O. 39, R. 7, CPC is not appe­alable. The object of the provisions of O. 38, R. 5, CPC for arrest and attachment before judgment is to prevent an at­tempt on the part of the defendant to defeat the realization of the decree that may be passed against him. The object of O. 39, R. 7, CPC for detention, preservation or inspection of the subject matter of the suit, etc. is mainly for the securi­ty of the subject matter of the suit. In Padam Sen vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1969 SC 218, the Supreme Court has held that the provisions of O. 38, R. 5, CPC are to pre­vent a decree that may be passed being rendered infructuous. is mainly for the securi­ty of the subject matter of the suit. In Padam Sen vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1969 SC 218, the Supreme Court has held that the provisions of O. 38, R. 5, CPC are to pre­vent a decree that may be passed being rendered infructuous. O. 39, R. 7, CPC empowers the Court, on the application of any party to suit, to make an order for detention, preserva­tion or inspection of any property which is the subject matter of the suit, or as to which any question may arise therein. In this view of the matter, the scope, object and applicability of O. 38, R. 5, CPC are different from those of O. 39, R. 7, CPC. 4. In view of the above discussions, a composite order under O. 38, R. 5, CPC and O. 39, R. 7, CPC cannot be passed. The matters are to be dealt separately. However, the effect of an order in one case may be relevant for consideration in the other case. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 13.6. 1986 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge (I), Gauhati is set aside and the case is sent back to the learned Assis­tant District Judge (1) to dispose of the matters separately in the light of the said observations. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The office shall send back the record to the Court be­low immediately. I hope and trust that the learned judge shall dispose of the matters expeditiously. No costs.