ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order of Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin (dated 23.12.2003) in I.A.No.693 of 2003 in O.S.No.308 of 2000, ordering attachment before judgment of the rent amount of Rs.12,000 per month payable by Union Bank of India to the revision petitioner/defendant-Vijayavel. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to in their original rank in O.S.No.308 of 2000 on the file of Subordinate Court, Tuticorin. 3. Facts in nutshell could be stated thus: On requisition from the revision petitioner/defendant, the plaintiff bank has granted a Term loan of Rs.5,00,000 for the purpose of constructing a commercial complex. The revision petitioner, defendant has executed the demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff-bank on 11.4.1996 for consideration of Rs.5,00,000 agreeing to repay the loan with interest at the rate of 23.25% per annum, The revision petitioner/defendant has executed a Letter of Undertaking agreeing to repay the loan amount in 84 equal instalments of Rs.5,960 each. On the same day 11.4.1996, the defendant has also deposited his Title Deeds relating to the plaint schedule properties and house site in S.Nos.416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 432, 433 and 456 and the house thereon in door No.224. The defendant has deposited the title deeds with intention to create equitable mortgage over the plaint schedule property. Since the defendant has committed default in payment of the schedule instalments claiming Rs.8,07,891, the plaintiff bank has filed O.S.No.302 of 2000 on the file of Subordinate Court, Tuticorin. 4. Admitting the borrowal, but denying the Execution of the Promissory Notes and Letter of Undertaking, the defendant has filed the written Statement, raising the defence that his signatures have been obtained in blank papers, which have been misused by the Bank for creating the documents, According to the defendant, loan of Rs.4,79,000 alone was released, which the defendant was promptly repaying. The defendant has denied the execution of revival letters dated 22.10.1997, 31.3.1998, 29.9.1998 and 30.9.1999. Denying his liability to pay the amount, the defendant has filed the written statement. 5. O.S.No.308 of 2000 was filed by the plaintiff-bank on17.10.2000. The defendant has denied the execution of revival letters dated 22.10.1997, 31.3.1998, 29.9.1998 and 30.9.1999. Denying his liability to pay the amount, the defendant has filed the written statement. 5. O.S.No.308 of 2000 was filed by the plaintiff-bank on17.10.2000. On 17.10.2001, I.A.No.693 of 2003 was filed under O.38, Rule 5, C.P.C. for attachment before judgment of rent amount of Rs.12,000 payable to the defendant by the Union Bank of India, Tuticorin In I.A.No.693 of 2003, the plaintiff-Bank has averred that the defendant has let out his property in door No.226, W.G.C.Road, Tuticorin to Union Bank of India on a monthly rental basis of Rs.12,000. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant has undertaken to pay the rental amount to the plaintiff-bank and hence, rental amount payable to the defendant every month by Union Bank of India is liable to be attached before judgment. It is further alleged that with a view to defraud the Bank, the defendant is delaying the payment and withholding the payment of rent. 6. The application was objected by the defendant on the ground that the building in door No.226, W.G.C.Road, Tuticorin belongs to the defendant and his wife. The defendant has denied any undertaking of paying the rental amount of the plaintiff-bank. According to the defendant, the plaint schedule property given as collateral security is more valuable than the suit amount and when there is a charge over the mortgaged property, the Order of Attachment cannot be ordered. 7. Parties are seriously contesting the application in I.A.No. 693 of 2003. To substantiate the claim and the Order of Attachment before judgment, on behalf of the plaintiff bank, as much as 26 documents were marked as exhibits. On behalf of the defendant, Ex.B-1 lease deed entered into by him and his wife-Meenakshi Prabha with Union Bank of India was produced as exhibit. 8. Upon consideration of the contentions of both the parties, learned Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin has found that building in door No.226, W.G.C.Road, Tuticorin belongs to the defendant. Learned subordinate Judge has found that though the defendant and his wife have entered into agreement of lease with the Union Bank of India, leasing out the premises to the Bank, the defendant was found to be the absolute owner of the premises. Learned subordinate Judge has found that though the defendant and his wife have entered into agreement of lease with the Union Bank of India, leasing out the premises to the Bank, the defendant was found to be the absolute owner of the premises. Pointing out that the amount is payable to the plaintiff-bank, which the defendant has been delaying, learned subordinate Judge has passed the impugned order, ordering attachment before judgment of Rent of Rs.12000 per month payable by the Union Bank of India to the defendant. 9. Aggrieved over the order of attachment before judgment, the revision petitioner/defendant has preferred this civil revision petition. 10. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that in view of O.21, Rule 46 and Rule 46-A, C.P.C. the rent payable by the Bank cannot be ordered to be attached. It is submitted that notice to Garnishee could be issued only when the debt has not been secured by mortgage or charge and that the Order of Attachment - attaching the rent of Rs.12,000 in a mortgage suit is unsustainable. It is further submitted that the conditions of O.38, Rule 5, C.P.C. have not been complied with and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Drawing the attention of the Court to the decision reported in M/s. Farook Textiles v. Bajran Synthetics Private Limited, (1997)3 C.T.C. 321 learned counsel has submitted that without applying the provisions of O.38, Rule 5, C.P.C. there cannot be straight Order of attachment before judgment as a matter of course. It is also submitted that without exhausting the remedies under O.34, Rule 5, C.P.C., the plaintiff bank cannot seek for attachment before judgment for attaching the rental income payable by the Union Bank of India to the defendant. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the decision reported in Ramalingam v. The Karur Vysya Bank Limited, (2002)2 L.W. 556 . 11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-bank has submitted that the suit has been filed for recovery of Rs.8,07,891 and that as on date Rs.18,35,490.31 is due. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the decision reported in Ramalingam v. The Karur Vysya Bank Limited, (2002)2 L.W. 556 . 11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-bank has submitted that the suit has been filed for recovery of Rs.8,07,891 and that as on date Rs.18,35,490.31 is due. It is further submitted that when the revision petitioner has been receiving the rent from the Union Bank of India, which he has undertaken to pay to the plaintiff -bank by way of instalments to discharge the loan when the defendant has not kept up his promise, the trial Court has rightly ordered attachment before judgment. Raising objection to the maintainability of the revision petition, it is submitted that the order of attachment of the amount from the Garnishee is an order made under O.38, Rule 2, C.P.C, which is only an appealable order and that the revision petition is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-bank has further submitted that the order of the trial Court is to be sustained lest the huge amount due to the Bank cannot be collected. 12. Upon consideration of the submissions of both parties, the order of attachment before judgment made in I.A.No.693 of 2003 and other materials on record, the following points arise for consideration in this revision: (i) When the debt is a mortgage debt whether the petition filed by the respondent/plaintiff-bank seeking for an order of attachment before judgment is maintainable; (ii) Whether the order of attachment of the rent payable by the Union Bank of India was not in compliance of the provisions of O.38, Rule 5, C.P.C., and whether the impugned order suffers from serious infirmity warranting interference? 13. The suit is based on the mortgage. The main point to be determined is whether in a mortgage suit, the petition filed by the plaintiff-bank seeking for order of attachment before judgment of the rent payable by the Union Bank of India is maintainable. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant has contended that in a mortgage suit, without exhausting the remedies under O.34, Rule.5, C.P.C., the plaintiff,/ bank-mortgagee cannot seek for order of attachment before judgment. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant has contended that in a mortgage suit, without exhausting the remedies under O.34, Rule.5, C.P.C., the plaintiff,/ bank-mortgagee cannot seek for order of attachment before judgment. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the decision reported in Ramalingam v. The Karur Vysya Bank Limited, (2002)2 L.W. 556 , wherein it has been held thus: "O.34 C.P.C. regulates the procedure to be followed in respect of suits relating to mortgages of immovable property. Rule 2 of O.34 prescribes about passing of preliminary Decree and Rule 5 speaks about the final decree in a suit for sale. O.34, Rule 6 of C.P.C. is the relevant provision for our case. The Sec. is so clear that the mortgagee viz. the plaintiff, who is the first respondent in the Appeal has to proceed to recover the comount due, by bringing the property hypothecated for sale and in case, the sale proceeds are insufficient to meet the amount due and payable, then only, he can file an application to the Court to pass a decree for such balance. The first respondent/plaintiff having not exhausted the remedy contemplated under O.34, Rule 5 of C.P.C., it is not open to him to file an application for attachment before judgment of the amount lying in the hands of Garnishee". 14. With respect, this Court is of the view that there cannot be any generalization that in a suit on a mortgage, there cannot be an application for attachment before judgment without exhausting the remedies under O.34, Rule 5, C.P.C. An attachment before judgment may be granted in a suit on a mortgage. The mortgagee must show that the mortgagor has been deliberately and fraudulently effecting sales or mortgages of his other property with the purpose of defeating any personal decree the mortgagee may get. In the instant case, the suit is not only for a mortgage deed, but also for a personal decree against the defendant. The mortgagee must show that the mortgagor has been deliberately and fraudulently effecting sales or mortgages of his other property with the purpose of defeating any personal decree the mortgagee may get. In the instant case, the suit is not only for a mortgage deed, but also for a personal decree against the defendant. Hence, it cannot be generalized to hold that in a mortgage suit, the application for attachment before judgment is not maintainable without exhausting the remedies contemplated under O.34, Rule 5, C.P.C. However, to order attachment before judgment in the instant case, no sufficient averments have been made in the affidavit that the mortgagor/defendant has been effecting sales or alienating the other properties with a view to defeat the lawful claim of the plaintiff-bank.For lack of such averments in the affidavit, the impugned order - order of attachment of rent payable by the Union Bank of India cannot be sustained. 15. Order of attachment of the rent payable by the Union Bank of India is an order issued against Garnishee. O.21, Rule 46-A, C.P.C. deals with notice to Garnishee. O.21, Rule 46-A, C.P.C reads thus: "... The Court may in the case of a debt (other than a debt secured by a mortgage or a charge) which has been attached under Rule 46, upto the application of the attaching creditor, issue notice to the Garnishee liable to pay such debt, calling upon him either to pay into Court the debt due from him to the judgment-debtor or so much thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the decree and costs of execution, or to appear and show cause why he should not do so . . . " Thus, the issuance of notice to the Garnishee and attachment of his property/money payable to the defendant arises only in case of debt other than the debt secured by a mortgage or a charge. In the case in hand, the amount being secured by way of a mortgage, the order issued against the garnishee/Union Bank of India ordering attachment before judgment of the rent of Rs.12,000 per month cannot be sustained. It is the contention of the plaintiff-bank that the defendant has given a letter of undertaking agreeing to pay the instalments payable to the plaintiff-bank from out of the rental income paid by the Union Bank of India. It is the contention of the plaintiff-bank that the defendant has given a letter of undertaking agreeing to pay the instalments payable to the plaintiff-bank from out of the rental income paid by the Union Bank of India. Document containing such terms and undertaking has not been produced to substantiate the contention of the plaintiff-bank. In the absence of any such letter of undertaking by the defendant, there cannot be an order of attachment before judgment of the rental amount payable by the garnishee/Union Bank of India. 16. O.38, Rule 5, C.P.C. is a drastic order, which interferes with the right of the parties to deal with his property/money. Before passing an order of attachment before judgment, the Court must be satisfied on the compliance of O.38, Rule 5, C.P.C. by reading O.38, Rule 5, C.P.C., it is clear that the essential requirements must be proved to the satisfaction of the Court as pointed out in the decision reported in Renox Commercials Limited., v. Inventa Technologies Private Limited, A.I.R. 2000 Mad.213: (i) the defendant is about to dispose of his property or is about to remove the property from the jurisdiction of the Court, and (ii) the defendant is intending to do so with a view to causing obstruction to, or delaying the execution of any decree that may be passed against the defendant; and (iii) The plaintiff should state precisely the grounds on which the belief or apprehension can be entertained, that the defendant is likely to dispose of, or remove the property. Thus, the plaintiff precisely state the grounds on which plaintiff bank has entertained the plea or apprehension that the defendant is likely to dispose or remove the property. 17. By reading of the averments in the affidavit in I.A.No.693 of 2003, it is clear that no such averments have been made in the affidavit. In the supporting affidavit, the plaintiff bank has averred only the following: ". . . The respondent has let out his property in door No.226, W.G.C.Road, Tuticorin-2 to Union Bank of India, on monthly rental basis and receiving a sum of Rs.12,000 towards rent. The respondent undertakes to pay the amount to the petitioner-bank. Now with an intention to defraud the Bank and to delay the payment, the respondent withheld the payment of rent amount to the petitioner-bank. The respondent is bound to obey his understanding. The respondent undertakes to pay the amount to the petitioner-bank. Now with an intention to defraud the Bank and to delay the payment, the respondent withheld the payment of rent amount to the petitioner-bank. The respondent is bound to obey his understanding. If the respondent makes delay in repaying the amount, serious prejudice will be caused. Hence, the rent amount due to the respondent every month from Union Bank of India has to be attached. If not serious prejudice will be caused". The above averments are not sufficient compliance of O.38, Rule 5, C.P.C. The plaintiff-bank has not precisely stated that the defendant is likely to dispose off the properties. On such averments, learned Subordinate Judge has ordered attachment before judgment of Rs.12,000 per month payable by the Union Bank of India to the defendant. The satisfaction of the Court in respect of various ingredients and essential requirements of O.38, Rule 5, C.P.C. are not made clear in the impugned order. 18. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant has relied upon the decision in M/s.Farook Textiles v. Rajan Synthetics Private Limited, (1997)3 C.T.C. 321 , in support of his contention that attachment before judgment cannot be allowed as a matter of course. In the absence of definite averments in the affidavit, learned Subordinate Judge ought to have called for more particulars before satisfying himself to order attachment before judgment. Since there are no definite averments in the affidavit that the mortgagor/defendant was alienating the other properties to defeat the personal decree against him, the order of attachment before judgment cannot be sustained. 19. But this Court is conscious of the huge claim involved in the Suit. The Suit was filed by the plaintiff bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.8,07,891. As on date, amount of Rs.18,35,490.31 is said to be due. The Suit is pending from the year 2000. The public money is involved in the claim and immediate steps are to be taken for speedy disposal of the suit and suitable instructions are to be issued to the trial Court. 20. In the civil revision petition is allowed. The order of attachment before judgment passed by the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin dated 23.12.2003 in I.A.No. 693 of 2003 in O.S.No.308 of 2000 is set aside. 20. In the civil revision petition is allowed. The order of attachment before judgment passed by the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin dated 23.12.2003 in I.A.No. 693 of 2003 in O.S.No.308 of 2000 is set aside. Learned Subordinate Judge is directed to take up the trial of the Case in O.S.No.308 of 2000 and dispose off the suit within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In the circumstances, there is no order as to costs. The connected C.M.P.No.1247 of 2004 is closed.