Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 378 (AP)

NALAZALA SRINIVAS RAO v. S. LOKESWARA RAO

2006-03-16

V.V.S.RAO

body2006
( 1 ) THE petitioner is defendant in O. S. No. 984 of 2004 on the file of the court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, kothagudem. The respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of an amount of rs. 68,900/ -. Along with the suit, he filed la. No. 1895 of 2004 for attachment before judgment. He sought an attachment for a thatched house bearing house No. 1-14 with appurtenant site admeasuring Acs. 0. 05 in thotapalli Village of Bhadrachalam Mandal of Khammam District. The application was filed under Order XXXV III Rules 5 and 6 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC ). By order, dated 28-12-2004, the learned junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, ordered defendant to furnish third party security within a period of forty eight (48) hours, from the receipt of the notice and further directed to attach the above mentioned property in case of default. The said order was communicated to the Mandal Revenue officer, Bhadrachalam, by way of warrant returnable by 4-3-2005. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed against that order. ( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the plaintiff and defendant are non-triabls as the property is situated in the Scheduled area, the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem cannot order attachment before judgment in respect of the property situated in scheduled area. He placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in A. P. State Financial corporation v. Paida Jogaiah, 2006 (3)ALD 627 = 2006 (2) ALT 13 . In spite of service of notice, none appears for the respondents. ( 3 ) THE warrant of attachment was addressed to Mandal Revenue Officer, bhadrachalam, commanding him to call upon the petitioner to furnish third party security for an amount of Rs. 75,000/- within forty eight (48) hours sufficient to satisfy the decree, that may likely to be passed against him or to appear before the Court and show-cause why security should not be furnished. The warrant also mentions that if the petitioner herein fails to furnish third party security, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall attach the petition schedule property, i. e. , thatched house and appurtenant land of the petitioner. The warrant also mentions that if the petitioner herein fails to furnish third party security, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall attach the petition schedule property, i. e. , thatched house and appurtenant land of the petitioner. The question is whether the principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem had such jurisdiction to attach the property in a scheduled area though the cause of action (as seen from the plaint) arose within the territorial limits of the learned trial Court. 2006 (4) FR-F-43 ( 4 ) ORDER XXXVIII Rules 5 and 6 of cpc do not contain anything which prohibits the civil Court from attaching the property which is situated beyond its territorial jurisdiction. Even the A. P. Agency rules, 1924 or A. P. Scheduled Areas Land transfer Regulations, 1959, do not contain any such provision which prohibits any other Court from attaching the properties situated in scheduled areas, and as security for the sufficient to satisfy the decree that may be passed or for satisfying the decree itself. Nonetheless, under A. P. Agency Rules, if the cause of action for the suit arose within the scheduled area, by reason of non-application of A. P. Civil Courts act, 1972 (Section 1 (3) thereof), a civil court constituted for non-tribal area cannot even entertain a suit. That is not the case here. There is no dispute that the plaintiffs cause of action arose at Sarapaka Village of Burgampad Mandal in Khammam district, within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, kothagudem. Therefore, when the Court has jurisdiction to try the suit, there cannot be any prohibition for attaching the property of the defendant situated in a scheduled area. The warrant was addressed to the mandal Revenue Officer presumably because the Mandal Revenue Officer is an agency Munsif and the service of process or notice as provided under Rule 22 of agency Rules is through the hierarchy of the Mandal Revenue Officer/agency Munsif and village servants under his control. ( 5 ) THIS Court, therefore, is not able to countenance the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The decision cited by the learned Counsel does not have any bearing on the issue involved in the civil revision petition. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.