ORDER 1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 216/97 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha is the petitioner. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order in I.A. No. 842/97 which was filed for attachment of immovable properties belonging to the defendants, before Judgment. Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 with 18 per cent interest till realisation from the defendants and their assets. According to the plaintiff, he entered into an agreement with the respondents for the purchase of 1 acre and 26 cents in Survey No. 607/IA, 37 cents in Survey No. 607/1B and 37 cents in Survey No. 607/1B/2 of Mulavoor Village. The agreement was executed on 23rd August 1996. The price was fixed at 4,600 per cent. The sale deed was agreed to be executed on or before 28th February 1,997. An amount of Rs. 1,00,000 was given to the defendants as advance. Since the defendants were not interested in performing their part of the agreement and no steps were taken by them to prove their title, petitioner/plaintiff repudiated the contract and demanded return of the advance amount of Rs. 1,00,000. 2. Along with the suit, petitioner filed I .A. No. 842/97 for attachment of the property agreed to be sold, viz., 2 acres in Survey Nos. 607/1 A, 607/IB and 607/1B2. In the affidavit accompanying the petition for attachment, petitioner' averred that the respondents/defendants were trying to alienate the properties so as to delay and defeat the decree that may be passed. According to the petitioners, the respondents were negotiating with one John Chakravalil for the sale of the said properties. Respondents had filed a caveat. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, they did not deny that they are contemplating the sale of the properties mentioned in the affidavit filed along with the petition for attachment. It was contended that they have got 5.18 acres of land in Survey No. 61/1A and 2A in Karimani Kara, Mananthawadi and therefore the sale of the properties sought to be attached does not warrant inference that they intend to delay or obstruct the execution of any decree. It was also stated on merits that there was no default on their part and they are prepared to sell the properties even now. After hearing the parties, by the impugned order, the learned Munsiff dismissed the petition. It was also stated on merits that there was no default on their part and they are prepared to sell the properties even now. After hearing the parties, by the impugned order, the learned Munsiff dismissed the petition. It is against that the present revision petition is filed. 3. The learned Munsiff was of the view that the attachment before Judgment could be issued only exceptionally and in very compelling circumstances. According to the court below, the allegations made in the affidavit were not sufficient to justify attachment before Judgment Defendants are having a larger extent of properties other than the properties scheduled in the plaint. Hence, the court below took the view that no case was made for attachment before Judgment. The Court below had taken into consideration the Judgment of a Division Bench of this court in Pareed Master v. Antony 1987 (2) KLT 649 . 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri P. B. Krishnan submitted that even though the court below had considered the decision in Pareed Master v. Antony 1987 (2) KLT 649 , it has failed to follow the decision. The learned counsel submitted that a distinction has been made in that decision before attachment of movable and immovable properties. Further, he submitted that in this case the respondents had filed a caveat in order to prevent any attachment order being passed ex parte and also filed a counter affidavit wherein they have not denied the averment in the affidavit that the properties were going to be sold. On the other hand, what is stated in paragraph L2 of the counter affidavit is that the defendants are at liberty to deal with the properties as they like. Learned counsel for the respondents Shri. Balakrishnan argued that the attachment before Judgment is a serious one and unless the affidavit discloses good reasons for attachment, the order will not be passed. Hence, according to him, the order passed by the court below was correct. 5. In Pareed Master v. Antony ( 1987 (2) KLT 649 ) the Division Bench distinguished the decision in Premchand v. Ahamed 1982 KLT 294 and observed as follows: "The observations of the learned Judge were made in a case where the plaintiff wanted to attach certain movable properties belonging to the defendant, whereas in the present case the plaintiff seeks attachment of immovable properties. If the first defendant is able to give sufficient security for the plaint amount, he can avert the attachment. It is also important to note that the 1st defendant has not given any statement before court that he had no intention to alienate the property. In the affidavit filed along with the application the plaintiff stated that the 1st defendant was taking steps to transfer the properties to others and the same was being done with an intention to delay and defeat the execution of the decree. The details of the proposed transaction are not given in the affidavit." The Division Bench in that case, after examining the facts, reversed the order of the trial "court and ordered attachment. The facts in the present case are also similar to the facts in the above Division Bench case. 6. In the affidavit accompanying the petition for attachment, it is stated that the defendants are intending to alienate the plaint schedule properties to one John Chakravalil to delay the execution of the decree, which may be passed against them. It is further stated that the defendants have no other properties except the plaint scheduled properties. Of course, the affidavit does no1 show what is the source of that information. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated as follows: "12. This defendant is at liberty to deal with his property as he likes. An attachment before Judgment will cause irreparable injury and Immense hardship to the defendants. 13. The defendant No. 1 owns and holds 5 acres and 18 cents of land in Survey No. 61-1A and 2A in Karimani Kara, Thavinjar Amsom, Firka Peria Tal. Mananthawadi, Vayanad. Therefore sale of 2 acres of land lying at Mulavoor Village does not warrant the inference that this defendant intends thereby to delay or obstruct the execution of a decree." 7. O.38 R.5(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure states thus: "Rule 5. Mananthawadi, Vayanad. Therefore sale of 2 acres of land lying at Mulavoor Village does not warrant the inference that this defendant intends thereby to delay or obstruct the execution of a decree." 7. O.38 R.5(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure states thus: "Rule 5. Where defendant may be called upon to furnish security for production of property, (1) Where, at any stage of a suit, the Court is satisfied, by affidavit or otherwise, that the defendant, with intent, to obstruct or 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." Thus, before ordering attachment, the Court should be satisfied on the basis of the records before it that the defendant was transferring the property with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of the decree. The lower court dismissed the application on the ground that the affidavit does not disclose the source on the basis of which the plaintiff was apprehending that the defendants were about to dispose of the properties in order to defeat the decree that may be passed against the defendants. It is true that in the affidavit filed along with the petition for attachment, the source from which the plaintiff got the information is not stated. But the plaintiff has stated the name of person to whom the defendants were intending to sell the land. If the affidavit stood alone, probably I could have justified the order of the court below. But here in this case, the defendants filed a counter affidavit. They did not deny the averment made in the affidavit that the defendants were taking steps to sell the property to John Chakravalil. If the affidavit stood alone, probably I could have justified the order of the court below. But here in this case, the defendants filed a counter affidavit. They did not deny the averment made in the affidavit that the defendants were taking steps to sell the property to John Chakravalil. On the other hand what is stated is that the defendants have got every right to alienate the properties. Further contention raised in the counter affidavit is that they have got about 5 acres of properties in Mananthawadi and that will be sufficient for settling the decree amount. 8. Thus, on a reading of the affidavit and the counter affidavit together, one thing becomes clear that the defendants are going to dispose of the properties. At the same time, the defendants have not stated the value of the properties in Mananthawadi. Those properties are outride jurisdiction of the court. Hence, it cannot be said that the plaintiff's apprehension was not true. Hence, I am satisfied that the petitioner has proved that there are sufficient materials to issue an order under O.38 R.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. In view of the above, I set aside the order of the court below and allow I. A. No. 842/97. Court below will pass necessary orders for effecting attachment. Attachment can be lifted if the defendants produced sufficient security for the plaint amount. Civil Revision Petition is allowed.