( 1 ) THIS Court ordered Notice before Admission on 17-11-2005 and granted an order of interim suspension. Sri M. N. Narasimha Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondent had entered appearance. ( 2 ) THE petitioner aggrieved by an order made in C. M. A. No. 65/2004 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, warangal, confirming the order made in IA. No. 501/2003 in O. S. No. 269/2003 on the file of n Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal had preferred the present civil revision petition. ( 3 ) THE respondent/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of Rs. 2,78,022/- with other ancillary reliefs praying for passing of a preliminary decree in relation to the mortgaged property shown in the plaint schedule. The respondent herein as plaintiff, moved two applications i. e. , i. A. No. 500/2005 and I. A. No. 501/2005 in the aforesaid suit praying for temporary injunction restraining the revision petitioner/ respondent/defendant from causing any damage to the suit property and from removing any structure, demolition and changing the physical features of the property till the disposal of the suit and also yet another relief under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as "code" for the purpose of convenience) to safeguard his rights for realisation of the decretal amount in the event of a decree being passed with a further request directing the revision petitioner/defendant to furnish security. The Court of first instance having marked exs. P-1 to P-9 and on appreciation of the facts and circumstances arrived at the conclusion that both the reliefs as prayed for to be granted. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent in the said applications, defendant in the suit, preferred C. M. A. Nos. 64 and 65 of 2004 on the file of iv Additional District Judge, Warangal and the learned Judge allowed C. M. A. No. 64/ 2004 setting aside the order made in i. A. No. 500/2003, thus disallowing the temporary injunction granted by the Court of first instance, but however dismissed c. M. A. No. 65/2004 wherein attachment before judgment of the plaint schedule house had been ordered inasmuch as security had not been furnished. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred. ( 4 ) SRI S. Ramachandra Prasad, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner would maintain that the suit itself is based on a mortgage and a preliminary decree in relation to the plaint schedule property had been prayed for. When already security is there it is peculiar that attachment before judgment had been ordered. The learned Counsel also would comment that the object of Order XXXVIII rule 5 of the Code may have to be kept in mind by Courts while ordering attachment before judgment. No acceptable material had been placed before the Court of first instance to order attachment before judgment. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties and would maintain that the truth or otherwise of the defence take in the written statement may have to be gone into at the appropriate stage. On that ground alone the appellate Court arrived at a wrong conclusion and had confirmed the order of the Court of first instance ordering attachment before judgment. The learned Counsel also placed string reliance on a decision of this Court in avinash Constructions, Secunderabad v. P. Usha Rao, 2004 (4) ALD 698 . ( 5 ) PER contra, Sri M. N. Narasimha reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondent/plaintiff would maintain that it is no doubt true that the suit is based on the strength of a mortgage and a preliminary decree was prayed for. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed by the revision petitioner/defendant and would maintain that in the light of the stand taken by the revision petitioner, the learned Judge having appreciated all the facts and circumstances ordered conditional attachment affording opportunity to the revision petitioner/defendant to furnish security and inasmuch as she was not in a position to furnish the same, the said order was made. The learned counsel also would maintain that it cannot be laid down as a broad proposition that under no circumstances in a suit based on mortgage attachment before judgment can be ordered. The learned Counsel would maintain that the same may have to be decided depending upon the facts and circumstances of a particular given case. The learned counsel also would maintain that it cannot be laid down as a broad proposition that under no circumstances in a suit based on mortgage attachment before judgment can be ordered. The learned Counsel would maintain that the same may have to be decided depending upon the facts and circumstances of a particular given case. The Counsel also pointed out to the relevant portions of the order made by the appellate Court and would contend that in the light of the justifiable reasons which had been recorded, the civil revision petition deserves to be dismissed. ( 6 ) HEARD the Counsel. Perused the impugned order and also the order made by the Court of first instance. ( 7 ) AT the outset it may be stated that prima facie the Court of first instance and also the appellate Court were well satisfied that it is a case where to safeguard the interest of the plaintiff, an order of attachment before judgment to be made. It is no doubt true that the Courts are expected to be careful and cautious and the power under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code to be exercised very sparingly. Strong reliance was placed on a decision of this Court Avinash Constructions, secunderabad v. P. Usha Rao (supra ). It is true that an order of attachment before judgment in the present case was made in relation to the self-same property which was offered as security by deposit of title deeds. On facts, there appears to be some controversy or dispute between the parties whether in fact it is a mortgage transaction or not. Be that as it may, this Court is not inclined to further go into the merits and demerits of this question since the same may have to be decided at the time of final disposal of the suit. It is also true that the order of attachment before judgment was not in relation to some other property as additional security. The object of invoking Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code is no doubt to safeguard the interest of the plaintiff if the Court is satisfied that ultimately even if a decree is going to be obtained by the plaintiff he may not able to realise the fruits of the decree. The object of invoking Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code is no doubt to safeguard the interest of the plaintiff if the Court is satisfied that ultimately even if a decree is going to be obtained by the plaintiff he may not able to realise the fruits of the decree. It is also true that the conditions specified in Order XXXVIII Rule 5 may have to be satisfied before making such an order. ( 8 ) WHEN the suit itself is based on the strength of a mortgage, normally the provisions in relation to Order XXXVIII rule 5 of the Code need not be resorted to in relation to the self-same property which had been already offered as sucirity (sic security) covered by the mortgage transaction. In Allahabad Bank v. R. S. A. Singh, AIR 1976 All. 447 , the Division bench of Lucknow Bench while dealing with a similar question in a slightly different context placing reliance on Bishambar sahai v. Sukhdevi, (1894) ILR 16 All. 186 and Jogemaya Dassi v. Baidyanath pramanick, AIR 1919 Cal. 258, held that until mortgaged properties are brought to sale no personal decree can be obtained against defendants but if a decree holder makes out a case under Order XXXVIII rule 5 or under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code and if the Court is satisfied amongst other things before making an order under that rule that the hypothecated property would be insufficient to discharge the mortgage debt the Court can proceed to attach or to restrain the alienation of the non-hypothecated property in a suit for sale under the mortgage. In Gopaldas hiralal v. Mahadu Dagdu, AIR 1943 bom. 24, a Division Bench of Bombay high Court held that it is open to a plaintiff after a preliminary mortgage decree to apply for attachment before judgment under order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code in a proper case. ( 9 ) HERE is a case where the suit no doubt is instituted on the strength of mortgage and in the light of the stand taken by the other side, both the Courts below had thought it fit to safeguard the interest of the plaintiff and ordered attachment before judgment and that too conditionally affording opportunity to the opposite party to furnish security and in the event of default only the said order would be effected. It was further recorded that there had been some proclamation or announcement relating to this property and inasmuch as the very transaction of mortgage itself had been put into serious dispute in the light of the defence taken, the Courts below thought it fit that it is a matter where an order of conditional attachment to be made. On appreciation of the material available on record, the learned Judges, both the Court of first instance and also the appellate Court, had recorded proper reasons and arrived at a particular conclusion that it is a fit matter where discretion to be exercised in favour of the respondent/plaintiff to safeguard his interest in relation to the realisation of the debt. It is needless to say that the other merits and demerits of the matter relating to the nature of the transaction may have to be gone into only at the appropriate stage. The fact that the suit is based on a mortgage transaction had been taken note of and special reasons why an order of attachment before judgment is being made by invoking Order XXXVIII rule 5 of the Code also had been specified. Inasmuch as it cannot be laid down as a broad proposition that under no circumstances in a suit based on mortgage, an order of attachment before judgment can be made and in view of the exceptional circumstances since the order was made, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said order and accordingly the civil revision petition shall stand dismissed. However, at this stage, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner made a request for early disposal of the mater. Inasmuch as this is only a suit for realisation of money, the learned Judge to expedite and dispose of the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. No costs.