ORDER Heard the counsel. 2. The matter is coming up for admission today. This Court ordered notice before admission on 24-10-2008 and granted interim stay for a limited period which is further extended from time to time. 3. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the application and the stand taken in the counter affidavit and would maintain that in the light of EX.B-1 when the party is affluent, in the absence of any acceptable material ordering attachment before judgment and the direction to furnish security, cannot be just and proper. The learned counsel also pointed out to the relevant portions of the affidavit filed in support of the application and also the specific stand taken in para 6 of the counter where several details had been mentioned. The counsel also would point out that here is a case wher9 the learned Judge had taken judicial notice of a third party affidavit being filed in yet another suit and pendency of yet another suit and ultimately allowed the application directing the defendant to furnish security on or before 17-10-2008. The counsel also would maintain that the very method adopted by the learned Judge in importing the other material which had been relied upon by the parties in yet another suit into the present suit while disposing of this application, cannot be permitted. In other words, the counsel would maintain that the application for attachment before judgment being harsh remedy, normally the courts are expected to decide such applications on the material placed before the court and making such observations and relying upon such material which does not form part and parcel of record of the suit, cannot be sustained. The counsel also relied on the order made by this Court in C.R.P.No. 2914 of 2008 and would maintain that inasmuch as may be expect (sic. except) EX.A-1 and EX.B-1 since no other acceptable material had been placed before the court, making such an order being unsustainable, the same is liable to be set aside. The counsel also relied on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions. 4. except) EX.A-1 and EX.B-1 since no other acceptable material had been placed before the court, making such an order being unsustainable, the same is liable to be set aside. The counsel also relied on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions. 4. On the contrary, Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel representing the respondent in the C.R.P., plaintiff in the suit, would maintain that EX.A-1 and EX.B-1 had been considered at length by the learned Judge and the learned Judge also had taken judicial notice of another suit O.S.No. 572 of 2007 is also coming up for orders in I.A.No. 760 of 2007 in O.S.No. 572 of 2007 filed by one E. Venkateswarlu and the third party affidavit of Viswanatham of Dhone town, which had been filed, had been taken into consideration and the said order had been made. Even otherwise, the counsel would maintain that if really the defendant is so affluent the defendant as well can offer security instead of contesting the application so seriously. 5. Heard the counsel. 6. The respondent herein as plaintiff filed O.S.No. 570 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool for recovery of amount and also filed I.A. No. 758 of 2007 under Order 38, Rule 5 C.P.C., praying for attachment of petition schedule property before judgment. The suit was instituted on the strength of a promissory note and in spite of repeated demands the defendant was not inclined to repay the same and on the other hand the defendant had been making serious attempts to dispose of the property with a view to delay the execution of decree which may be passed against him and he is trying to leave the jurisdiction to the court after selling away the properties. Further, specific stand had been taken that he is heavily indebted to several creditors and that except the petition schedule property there is no other property. The defendant filed counter in detail narrating several facts, several purchases and also his income from the business and other aspects. The learned Judge after formulating the point for consideration at para 5, appreciated EX.A-1 and EX.B-1 as well, recorded reasons commencing from paras 6 to 12 and ultimately allowed the application directing the defendant to furnish security on or before 17-10-2008, failing which attachment will be ordered. The learned Judge after formulating the point for consideration at para 5, appreciated EX.A-1 and EX.B-1 as well, recorded reasons commencing from paras 6 to 12 and ultimately allowed the application directing the defendant to furnish security on or before 17-10-2008, failing which attachment will be ordered. EX.A-1 is the certified copy of memorandum of deposit of title deeds in favour of Axis Bank Limited. Ex. B-1 is the certificate issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kurnool. The learned Judge at para 12 discussed as hereunder: ''The perusal of above two referred decisions. the ratio laid down in both the decisions is that, the court has to appreciate all the facts and circumstances and to arrive at a right conclusion before ordering attachment over the property, there must be some material like third party affidavits or the other material to satisfy that the respondent is going to avoid or cause delay for execution of the decree, Further the court without giving an opportunity to furnish security, attachment cannot be ordered. Considering both the judgments relied by learned counsel, in this case though the petitioner failed to file third party affidavit in support of his contention, but the court can take judicial notice that another suit O.S.No, 572 of 2007 is also coming up for orders in IA No. 760 of 2007 in O.S.No. 572 of 2007 filed by one E, Venkateswarlu against the present respondent for attachment of schedule mentioned property mentioned therein in that petition he filed third party affidavit of one Kotrike Viswanatham of Dhone town, wherein the third party affirmed that the respondent is going to sell away the property and asked him to purchase the property. Further, he affirmed that the respondent is heavily indebted and several suits were also filed against him, Therefore, merely on the ground that third party affidavit was not filed in this case, I feel dismissing the petition is not justified. It IS not denied by the respondent that there are suits filed by the creditors against him in several courts. Admittedly another suit O.S.No. 572 of 2007 filed by other creditors is also coming up along with this petition for orders in a petition filed under Order 38, Rule 5 C.P.C" 7. It IS not denied by the respondent that there are suits filed by the creditors against him in several courts. Admittedly another suit O.S.No. 572 of 2007 filed by other creditors is also coming up along with this petition for orders in a petition filed under Order 38, Rule 5 C.P.C" 7. The Division Bench of this Court in S.P. Venkanna Babu v. M/s. Varalakshmi Finance Corporation observed at paras 6 and 7 as hereunder: "It does not appear from the impugned order that the procedure under Order 38 Rules 5 and 6 was followed before passing final order. The scheme of the code, as explained above, contemplates, before any order is passed under Order 38 Rule 6, the defendant to be called upon to furnish security to satisfy the decree that may be ultimately passed and only on his failure to furnish security, to direct attachment. In the present case, the order passed on 4-12-1995 shows that the appellant was not called upon to 'furnish security for the purpose of passing an order under Order 38 Rule 6 C.P.C. The security was called upon to be furnished for passing the conditional attachment order. Passing an order for furnishing security ex parte would obviously require the order to be brought to the notice of the defendant and reasonable time granted to furnish the security. The essential conditions to be satisfied are that the Court must on proper materials be satisfied that there is an attempt of alienation of the properties so as to trust rate the decree that may be passed in the suit and secondly, or being called upon, the defendant fails to furnish security or to show cause why the security would not be furnished. If the Court comes to prima facie view hat an attempt is being made to dispose of the properties it may pass a conditional order of attachment while calling upon the defendant to furnish security. Hence the primary requirement is of the satisfaction of the court that attachment is necessary to make the decree a reality and realizable and not one at vacuum. In the present case, it appears that the Court had passed orders on two affidavits filed, one by the Managing Partner of the respondent company, Sri Simhadri Surya Rao and the another affidavit by the Clerk of the respondent company, Sri Bolla Krishna Rao as a third party affidavit. In the present case, it appears that the Court had passed orders on two affidavits filed, one by the Managing Partner of the respondent company, Sri Simhadri Surya Rao and the another affidavit by the Clerk of the respondent company, Sri Bolla Krishna Rao as a third party affidavit. In the first affidavit, it was stated that the appellant was trying to alienate the petition schedule properties with an intention to defeat or delay the claim of the respondent. In the second affidavit, the clerk of the plaintiff stated that he had been to Madras on business work of the company and he was there on 28th, 29th and 30th of November, 1995. During his stay at Madras, he learnt of the appellant's attempt to alienate the properties. An order of attachment before judgment affects the right of the owner of the property to deal with the same even before any verdict is available against him as regards the claim of the plaintiff. Such an order is not to be passed merely for the asking or in the routine manner. There must be cogent, prima facie materials to lead the Court to the conclusion that there have been attempts by the defendant to dispose of the property with a view to defeat the decree. Mere satisfaction that there has been an attempt to dispose of the property is in itself not sufficient and there must be further conclusion, again prima facie, that the attempt to alienate is to delay or defeat the decree. For reaching such satisfaction, there has to be before the Court some tangible material than the mere statement without giving any particulars and without disclosing the source of the information of attempted alienation, The learned Subordinate judge should have been alert to the fact that there was actually no third party affidavit as the second affidavit was only of the Clerk of the respondent-firm who was under its control as an employee. The affidavits in themselves do not disclose as to when an attempt was made to alienate, what type of alienation was intended to be made and to whom the alienation was being desired to be made and who gave such information. The learned Subordinate Judge did not make any such enquiry before passing the order which grossly and adversely affected the appellant. The learned Subordinate Judge did not make any such enquiry before passing the order which grossly and adversely affected the appellant. In the order passed on 4-12-1995, no time was fixed to enable the appellant to furnish security. While passing the final order, the Court was not alive to the fact that the respondent's agent had accompanied the bailiff from the Madras Court and finding the respondent merely absent recorded remark that the security was not furnished by the appellant. One fails to understand as to how if the appellant was absent, he failed to furnish security. Merely because the appellant was not present at the spot when the bailiff went there, it did not mean that he was absent for all times. It could not certainly be said that the appellant must be found at his place whenever the bailiff chooses to visit and the moment he is not found, the property would be attached. There was no genuine attempt made to enable the appellant to furnish security. The report further shows that the bailiff went to item one of the property and finding that the appellant was absent, by called upon the wife and son of the appellant to furnish security and on their failure to do so, attached the property. Obviously no time was given to the respondent to know of the order of the court and to furnish security as directed. The procedure followed is highly irregular. Consequently, we are to hold that the appellant was never given any opportunity to furnish security for which the impugned order passed is void under Order 38 Rule 5 (4) CPC. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order and allow the civil miscellaneous appeal with costs." 8. Reliance was also placed in K. Mallesh Mudiraj v. C. Suchakaf wherein the learned Judge observed at para 10 as hereunder: "It is, however, brought to the notice of this Court that except the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application no other third-party affidavits or any other material had been placed before the Court. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the reasons, which had been recorded in paras 6 and 7 appear to be just reproduction of the language of the provisions specified supra. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the reasons, which had been recorded in paras 6 and 7 appear to be just reproduction of the language of the provisions specified supra. The learned Judge may have to appreciate all the facts and circumstances of the case and may have to arrive at a conclusion." 9. The present revision petitioner is shown as respondent in C.R.P.No. 2914 of 2008. One Bharath Kumar, the creditor filed suit O.S.No. 22 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Kurnool and also filed I.A.No. 2/52 of 2007 praying for attachment before judgment. The said application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the said Bharath Kumar, plaintiff in the said suit, preferred the said C.R.P. No. 2914 of 2008 and this Court by order dated 12-8-2008 made the following order: "Except the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application, no other material has been placed by the petitioner before the Court below seeking attachment of the petition schedule properties. In the light of the finding recorded by the learned I Additional District Judge, Kurnool, and in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be found fault. However, in view of the changed circumstance, liberty is given to the petitioner to move appropriate application, if he is so advised. With the above direction, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs." 10. No doubt in the present case no supporting third party affidavit had been filed. But, however, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge imported the other third party affidavit filed in yet another suit while deciding the present application. However, some material had been placed EX.A-1 certified copy of memorandum of deposit of title deeds in favour of Axis Bank Limited and Ex, B-1 certificate issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kurnool. In the light of the same, instead of giving liberty to move appropriate application, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool to give opportunity to both the parties to place any further material on which the parties intend to rely upon and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. 11. The civil revision petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. 11. The civil revision petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.