G. BIKSHAPATHY, J. ( 1 ) THE C. R. P. is filed against the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, kavali in I. A. No. 45 of 2000 in O. S. No. 2 of 2000. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is the defendant. Respondent No. 1-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of certain sums from the petitioner herein in O. S. No. 2 of 2000. Pending suit, he filed I. A. No. 45 of 2000 under Order xxxviii Rule 5 of the Code of Civil procedure seeking attachment before judgment. The said application, after hearing the parties was allowed by an order dated 17-4-2000 against the said order, the present Revision has been filed. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the lower Court failed to observe the mandatory provisions contained in Order XXXVIII of C. P. C. ; as such the order passed by the lower Court is wholly erroneous and contrary to law. The learned Counsel further submits that the suit itself is not maintainable in view of the averments made in the written statement but even otherwise the lower Court has to satisfy prima facie that the petitioner is about to dispose of whole or any part of the property or is about to remove the whole or any part of the property from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. Such a finding was not recorded and therefore it is a violation of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 c. P. C. ( 4 ) ON the other hand the learned senior counsel Sri M. V. Ramana Reddy appearing for 1st respondent submits that the lower court after satisfying with the conditions existed for issue of attachment before judgment, the order was passed. Moreover he also submits that even now the petitioner is prepared to furnish security for the suit amount, hence the lower Court may be directed to proceed with the suit after furnishing security. ( 5 ) THE question that falls for consideration is whether the lower Court has followed the mandatory provisions under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of C. P. C. before allowing the prayer in I. A. No. 45 of 2000. ( 6 ) IT is no doubt true that I. A. No. 45 of 2000 was filed seeking attachment before judgment. ( 5 ) THE question that falls for consideration is whether the lower Court has followed the mandatory provisions under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of C. P. C. before allowing the prayer in I. A. No. 45 of 2000. ( 6 ) IT is no doubt true that I. A. No. 45 of 2000 was filed seeking attachment before judgment. Some pre-conditions were stipulated in Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of c. P. C. which is extracted below:- "where defendant may be called upon to furnish security for production of property:-5 (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. (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". As can be seen from the above provision the court has to satisfy itself that the defendant with an intention to obstruct or delay execution of any decree that may be passed against him is in the process of disposing of the whole or any part of the property, then only after recording such satisfaction, it shall call upon the petitioner to furnish security stipulating certain time and if he does not furnish sufficient security, it is open for the Court to order attachment before judgment. But as can be seen from the order the lower Court only extracted contentions of the petitioner as well as the 1st respondent-plaintiff, but did not record the satisfaction as to whether the petitioner is likely to dispose of the whole or any part of his property, which is a mandatory requirement and if this requirement is not followed the entire attachment becomes void under sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of order XXXVIII. I do not find any such discussion in the order. Therefore, I am satisfied that the lower Court failed to comply with the conditions stipulated in order XXXVIII Rule 5 of C. P. C. Accordingly I am of the opinion that the matter should go back to the lower Court for fresh consideration. ( 7 ) IN the result, the C. R. P. is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the lower Court for fresh consideration after hearing the parties and pass appropriate orders within three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending the disposal of I. A. No. 45 of 2000, the petitioner shall be paid the amount covered by bill in respect of agreement No. 56, SE 91-92 by Respondents 2 and 3 withholding only Rs. 2,75,000/ -. No costs.