( 1 ) THESE civil revision petitions are filed by the revision petitioner/respondent/2nd defendant in the respective suits, aggrieved by the orders made in the applications moved by the respective plaintiffs under Order 38 rule 5 read with Order 21 Rule 46 of C. P. C. , praying for attachment before judgment by issuing prohibitory order to the garnishee. The 1st defendant as G. P. agent of the 2nd defendant filed all the suits as summary suits for recovery of the respective amounts on the strength of the suit promissory notes. ( 2 ) SRI A. Sudershan Reddy, learned counsel representing the petitioner/2nd defendant would point out that prima facie, these orders impugned in the C. R. Ps. cannot be sustained for the reason that even as per the case of the respective plaintiffs, the suit promissory notes were not executed by the petitioner/2nd defendant, butitwas pleaded that since the 1st defendant executed those promissory notes as G. P. agent, the 2nd defendant also is liable and on that ground, the applications had been filed praying for attachment before judgment. The learned counsel also would contend that when suits had been instituted by following the summary procedure under Order 37ofc. P. C. normally, order 38 Rule 5 of C. P. C. would not be invoked for the reason that special procedure relating to leave to defend had been specified under Order 37 C. P. C. the learned counsel also would contend that when special procedure had been specified under Order 37 of C. P. C. , the general provision under Order 38 Rule 5 of C. P. C. cannot be followed. The learned counsel further submitted that no opportunity was given to furnish security and no conditional attachment as such was made and in the light of Order 38 Rules 4 and 5 of C. P. C. , such an order is void and the same is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel also had contended that Order 21 Rule 46 of C. P. C. cannot be invoked, since the said provision is not applicable. The furnishing of security or otherwise, whether leave to be granted or a conditional leave to be granted to defend in the suit, these are all matters to be decided at the appropriate stage and definitely not at this stage. The furnishing of security or otherwise, whether leave to be granted or a conditional leave to be granted to defend in the suit, these are all matters to be decided at the appropriate stage and definitely not at this stage. The learned counsel also pointed out that by virtue of this prohibitory order of attachment of cheques, the revision petitioner is unable to further execute his contract. The learned counsel also placed reliance on a decision reported in M/s. Industrial Associates, 3465, Rashtrapati Road, Secunderabad, represented by its Proprietor Harikishan Ratava v. Mohammed Hussain. ( 3 ) ON the contrary, Sri Meherchand Noori, learned counsel representing the 1st respondent/plaintiff in these revision petitions would contend that the plaintiff is only interested in realization of the amount and even in the event of obtaining a decree, since the plaintiff cannot be successful in realising the amount, these applications were moved praying for attachment before judgment. The learned counsel also would contend that no distinction can be drawn between a suit filed under summary procedure under Order 37 of C. P. C. and other ordinary suits for the purpose of invoking Order 38 Rule 5 of C. P. C. The learned counsel also would maintain that inasmuch as it is only an interim order, the petitioner could have approached the same court instead of approaching this Court and normally this Court should be slow in interfering with such orders while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Ouseph Mathai v. M. Abdul Khadir and essen Deinkai v. Rajiv Kumar. The learned counsel also would contend that these revisions are pre-mature and at any rate, would submit that even at this stage, this court can issue such directionsby permitting the petitioner to furnish security. The learned counsel placed reliance on a decision reported in Modem Mallikarjuna Rao v. Butti Bharathi and others. The learned counsel also had placed reliance on Surender Singh Bajaj v. M/s. Kitty Steels Ltd. and Southern petrochemical Industrial Corporation Ltd. and others v. S. Rathish Khnna. The learned counsel placed reliance on a decision reported in Modem Mallikarjuna Rao v. Butti Bharathi and others. The learned counsel also had placed reliance on Surender Singh Bajaj v. M/s. Kitty Steels Ltd. and Southern petrochemical Industrial Corporation Ltd. and others v. S. Rathish Khnna. While concluding, the learned counsel also submitted that while granting leave also, directions to deposit even the whole amount can be issued by the courts in the suits filed under Summary procedure and in this view of the matter, the interest of the plaintiff in these matters may have to be safeguarded. Reliance was placed on a decision reported in Director of enforcement v. Fr. J. M. Stevens. ( 4 ) SRI Gopala Krishna, learned counsel representing the garnishee-Manager, Lord krishna Bank, Rajbhavan Road, Hyderabad, in three of the matters had brought to the notice of this Court that an amount of rs. 3,980/- alone is lying to the credit of the petitioner with the garnishee. ( 5 ) HEARD the learned counsel and also perused the material available on record. ( 6 ) AS can be seen from the material available on record in all the C. R. Ps. the orders served on the garnishee alone had been filed and the orders passed by the Court below had not been produced before this court. But, however, both the learned counsel had proceeded on the ground that an interim attachment was made without calling upon the opposite parties to furnish security or without making any conditional attachment order. No doubt, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner made on attempt that at any rate, Order 21 Rule 46 c. P. C. is not applicable to the facts of these cases. No doubt, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner made on attempt that at any rate, Order 21 Rule 46 c. P. C. is not applicable to the facts of these cases. ( 7 ) A careful reading of Order 38 (5) of c. P. C. would go to show that the said provision also is applicable to suits filed as summary suits under Order 37 of C. P. C. in the Official Assignee, High Court, Madras v. Kantiayalal Sharma, the Madras High Court while dealing with Order 38 Rule 5 and order 37 Rule 3 of C. P. C. held as follows:"an order of attachment before judgment and leave sought for leading evidence and the plaintiff giving no objection in view of deposits made by defendant in the court and the defendant adjudged as insolvent during the pendency of the suit, official assignee could not claim the amount and the plaintiff would have lein over the amount till the decision of suit", ( 8 ) IT is no doubt true that this question had not fallen for consideration in the strict sense, but, however, this decision is suggestive of the fact that Order 38 Rule 5 of C. P. C. in appropriate cases may be invoked even in suits filed under Order 37 of C. P. C. It is not in controversy that no notice was given to the revision petitioner calling upon him to furnish security. No doubt, the learned counsel representing the 1st respondent/ plaintiff made an attempt to show that in certain other proceedings, on failure to do so, some orders of interim attachment were made absolute, but this statement is made only across the Bar and there is no material placed before this Court in this regard. No doubt, the learned counsel representing the 1st respondent/ plaintiff made an attempt to show that in certain other proceedings, on failure to do so, some orders of interim attachment were made absolute, but this statement is made only across the Bar and there is no material placed before this Court in this regard. ( 9 ) IN Southern Petrochemical Industries corporation Ltd, and others v. S. Rathish Kanna (6 supra) it was held as follows:- "order 38 Rule 5 (1) C. P. C. postulates that the Court must be first of all be satisfied that the defendant with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against him is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property or is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court, only then, under such contingencies, the court may direct the defendant within a time to be fixed by it, either to furnish security in such sum specified, to produce and place at the disposal of the Court, when required, the said property or the value or to appear and show cause as to why he should not furnish security. ( 10 ) IN M/s. Industrial Associates, 3465, rashtrapati Road, Secunderabad, Represented by its Proprietor Harikishan Ratava v. Mohammed Hussain (1 supra) it was held as follows:"as a question of law, since that would be a petition under Order 21 Rule 46 read with Order 38 Rule 5, the requirement of a show cause notice or a direction to the defendant to furnish security cannot be dispensed with. If it is a petition simpliciter under Order 21 rule 46, the position is of course different. In that event no notice to the judgment debtor is necessary. The contention of the re vision petitioner that at the stage of the issue of prohibitory order in a case like this, no notice to the defendant is necessary is therefore, not acceptable". In that event no notice to the judgment debtor is necessary. The contention of the re vision petitioner that at the stage of the issue of prohibitory order in a case like this, no notice to the defendant is necessary is therefore, not acceptable". ( 11 ) IN Surender Singh Bajaj v. M/s. Kitty steels Ltd. and Southern Petrochemical industries Corporation Ltd. and others v. S. Rathish Kanna (1 supra) it was held as follows:"order 38 Rule 7 C. P. C. provides that the attachment under Order 38 Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38 rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned single Judge that under order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC. The only allegation made by the plaintiff in the affidavit filed in support of the application is that the defendant No. 2 is "now trying to leave beyond the jurisdiction of the Court" and that "he is attempting to withdraw the money deposited with the defendant No. 2 and if the attachment before judgment is not granted it would be very difficult for the plaintiffs to recover their dues from the defendant No. 1". That is the only allegation in the affidavit. Therefore, the question to be considered is whether the above allegation of the plaintiffs could constitute necessary conditions precedent to order an application under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC unless it is also pleaded that by the impugned conduct of the defendant no. 1, he was intending to delay the execution of the decree that may be passed by the Court against him. The satisfaction of the Court that the defendant with an intention to obstruct or delay the execution of the decree that may be passed by it, is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, in sine qua non for exercising the power under Order 38 Rule 5. This condition is totally absent in the instant case. In the impugned order, nowhere the Court below has recorded such satisfaction. In that view of the matter, the Court below ought not to have ordered the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC. " ( 12 ) IN Modem Mallikarjuna Rao v. Butti bharathi and others (4 supra) it was held as follows:"the Petitioner-Plaintiff specifically alleged in the said I. A. No. 1013 of 2002 that the second Respondent-second defendant with the co-operation of respondents 1 and 3 (Defendants 1 and 3)is making hectic efforts to draw away the amount mentioned in the schedule with intent to defeat his claim for the suit amount. That if the second respondent-second Defendant is not restrained from doing so, the execution of the decree that the Petitioner-Plaintiff may obtain in the suit, will be defeated and that the Petitioner-Plaintiff will not be in a position to realize any portion of the decretal amount and he will thereby be put to irreparable loss. It was further stated in the said I. A. No. 1013 of 2002 that the second Respondent with the concurrence of Respondents 1 and 3 (Defendants 1 and 3) already withdrew an amount of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- relating to the works mentioned in the schedule; that the amount mentioned in the schedule is payable by the officers mentioned therein; that the respondents-Defendants may be directed to furnish proper and adequate security for the suit amount and costs of the suit within the time to be granted by the Court and that the amount mentioned in the schedule may be attached before judgment in case the respondents-Defendants fail to furnish security. The said averments is in consonance with Rule 5 (1) of Order 38 c. P. C. The petitioner-Plaintiff also filed third party affidavits stating that the second Respondent-second Defendant is trying to withdraw the amount mentioned in the schedule as early as possible with intent to defeat or delay the claim of the Petitioner-Plaintiff. As the Court below at the first instance without issuing any show-cause notice straightaway passed order of conditional attachment giving 48 Hours alone to the second Respondent-Second defendant to furnish security, this Court set aside the said order directing the court below to hear both parties and pass reasoned order. As the Court below at the first instance without issuing any show-cause notice straightaway passed order of conditional attachment giving 48 Hours alone to the second Respondent-Second defendant to furnish security, this Court set aside the said order directing the court below to hear both parties and pass reasoned order. Though the petitioner-Plaintiff specified the property required to be attached in the schedule filed along with the said i. A. No. 1013 of 2002, the Court below having noticed that the respondents- defendants already withdrew a substantial amount of Rs. 1,10,00,000/-, failed to appreciate the same in the proper perspective, what all the petitioner-plaintiff desires from the court is only a direction to the respondents-Defendants to furnish the property security for the suit amount. The Petitioner-plaintiff is not interested in attaching the schedule amount but he requests the Court to direct the respondents-Defendants to furnish the proper and adequate security for the suit amount alone, the Respondents-Defendants have not furnished any material particulars with regard to the socalled properties alleged to have been possessed by them at various places. There was no justification on the part of the Respondents-Defendants in refusing to furnish the security for the suit amount. The Courtbelow assumed and presumed that the Respondents-Defendants have sufficient properties at Hyderabad, Nellore and Kakinada though no particulars have been furnished. Admittedly the respondents-Defendants are not staying at Nellore but they themselves stated that they are staying at hyderabad. If they are having vast property nothing prevented them from furnishing security for the suit amount. In the instant case, the Petitioner-Plaintiff showed cogent reasons and submitted prima facie material to the court so as to reach such a conclusion that there was an attempt by the respondents-Defendants to withdraw the schedule property with a view to defeat the decree. I am of the opinion that the Petitioner-Plaintiff furnished sufficient material by making cogent and relevant averments in the affidavit as well as in the third party affidavits that the Respondents-Defendants with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of the decree that may be passed against them are about to dispose of the whole of the said property. I am of the opinion that the Petitioner-Plaintiff furnished sufficient material by making cogent and relevant averments in the affidavit as well as in the third party affidavits that the Respondents-Defendants with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of the decree that may be passed against them are about to dispose of the whole of the said property. If the schedule property is allowed to be withdrawn by the Respondents-Defendants without furnishing security for the suit amount, it may not be possible for the petitioner-Plaintiff to execute the decree in the absence of any security, the Court below ought to have directed the respondents-Defendants to furnish security when it is the case of the respondents-Defendants that they have vast properties. In chairman and M. D. ,r. P,n. N. Ltd. v. Rambachane Singh ( 1997 (5) ALT 96 = 1997 (5) ALD 18 (DB) a Division Bench of this High Court held at para 3 of its judgment as follows: "such an order is not to be passed in a routine manner merely for the asking for it but that the Court has to be satisfied on tangible materials placed before it that there are attempts at alienation and that the steps are taken so as to delay or obstruct the judgment that may be ultimately passed against the defendant. Before passing an order, the defendantis first of all to be called upon to furnish security in the shape of specific sum to produce and place at the disposal of the Court, when required, the property specified by the plaintiff in his petition or such portion of its as may be sufficient to satisfy the decree or call upon him to show cause as to why he shall not furnish security, but such an order can be passed only after the primary satisfaction of the obstructive conduct of the defendant. The ultimate attachment order can be passed only if the defendant either fails to show cause why the security shall not be furnished or fails to furnish the security as required. " ( 13 ) AS per the material available on record, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever about the stage when leave to defend or considering the question whether conditional or unconditional leave to be granted, and the parties did not reach that stage till now. " ( 13 ) AS per the material available on record, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever about the stage when leave to defend or considering the question whether conditional or unconditional leave to be granted, and the parties did not reach that stage till now. ( 14 ) TAKING into consideration the over all facts and circumstances of the cases into consideration, instead of remitting the matters back again, the impugned orders are hereby set aside with a direction to the petitioner to furnish security to the satisfaction of the VII Additional Senior Civil judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the learned Judge shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from today and the learned Judge is expected to hear both parties on the sufficiency of the security, which would be furnished in this regard. In default there of, the learned Judge is at liberty to pass appropriate orders in this regard. ( 15 ) WITH the above direction, the civil revision petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.