ORDER The civil revision petition is directed against the order of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada dated 21-3-2006 in I.A. No.448 of 2006 in A.S. No.49 of 2006, whereby the first appellate Court directed not only the deposit of costs of the decree but also furnishing of third party security to a sum of Rs.3,09,800/- being the value of suit property as mentioned in the plaint for the due performance of the decree as may be ultimately binding on the appellants pending the appeal. 2. The appellants/defendants approached this court by way of this revision contending that the direction to furnish security to the extent of the value of the suit property as specified in the plaint is onerous and beyond the scope of the decree. 3. Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners has brought it to the notice of this Court that the suit is only for declaration and permanent injunction in which the other side succeeded claiming to be in possession and therefore, they cannot be further burdened for the due performance of decree by way of providing any monetary security. He stated that his clients are lower middle class men who will be deprived of their right to defend the possession of the property claimed by them pending disposal of the appeal, if an impossible condition of furnishing security for more than RS.3.00 lakhs were to be insisted upon. 4. As permitted by this Court by orders dated 16-6-2006, notice of this revision petition was served on learned counsel for the plaintiffs/ respondents in the lower appellate Court and proof of the same was furnished, but there is no representation for either respondent. 5. The point for consideration is whether the order directing furnishing of third party security for the value of suit property pending the appeal for the purposes of stay of all further proceedings, vitiates the impugned order? Point: 6. It is seen from the material on record that the suit is for declaration of title of the first plaintiff to the suit property and for a consequential injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 to 3 from interfering with such possession. The suit was decreed after contest on 24-1-2006, against which the revision petitioners have preferred the first appeal, which is a matter of right. The suit was decreed after contest on 24-1-2006, against which the revision petitioners have preferred the first appeal, which is a matter of right. They have also deposited the costs of the decree as directed by the first appellate Court in the impugned order. Even if they fail in the appeal and are to be bound by the decree as passe9 by the trial Court, there is nothing which they should secure monetarily to preserve and protect the rights of the decree holders except not interfering with the possession ,of the suit property. How furnishing of any monetary security would aid in due performance of the decree that may be ultimately binding on the revision petitioners is incomprehensible and undoubtedly providing third party security for such a huge sum is stupendous and onerous for men with little means, if not impossible. There appears neither any justification nor need for requiring such third party security and to that extent the impugned order suffers from material irregularity. 7. Therefore, the order of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada in I.A. No.448 of 2006 in A.S. No.49 of 2006, dated 21-3-2006 is set aside to the extent of directing the appellants before it to furnish third party security for a sum of Rs.3,09,800/- and the civil revision petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.