Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.— Affidavit of service filed today is taken on record. No one has put in appearance for opposite party nos. 2 to 10. Heard Mr. Rama Shankar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Gufran Hussain, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.1. The Writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 7.2.2013 passed in Regular Suit No. 67 of 2011 (Smt. Amrawati Singh and others Vs. Urmila Tripathi and others) whereby application preferred by the petitioners-defendants under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected by the learned Trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suit for declaration and injunction was filed by the opposite party nos.2 to 6, in which the petitioners have been impleaded as defendants. The petitioners have filed counter claim under Order VIII Rule 6-A of Code claiming possession and arrears of rent etc. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the plaintiffs-opposite parties are totally stranger to the property in question and in case the suit preferred by them is dismissed and the counter claim filed by the petitioners are allowed, the decree could not be executed against plaintiffs as they have not disclosed any detail about the property owned by them. The petitioners, as such, had moved an application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code before the learned Trial Court to furnishing security for that purpose. The learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the application preferred by the petitioners and has rejected the same merely considering the undertaking given by the plaintiffs. I have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel. Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code relates that where the defendant may be called upon to furnish security for production of property. The learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the application preferred by the petitioners and has rejected the same merely considering the undertaking given by the plaintiffs. I have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel. Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code relates that where the defendant may be called upon to furnish security for production of property. As per the aforesaid provision if the Court is satisfied, by affidavit or otherwise, that the defendant, with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against him, is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property, or is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court, the court may direct the defendant, within a time to be fixed by it, either to furnish security, in such sum as may be specified in the order, to produce and place at the disposal of the court, when required, the said property or the value of the same, or such portion thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the decree, or to appear and show cause why he should not furnish security. The relevant provision of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code, for convenience is reproduced as below: "5. Where defendant may be called upon to furnish security for production of property.- (1) Where, at any stage of a suit, the court is satisfied, by affidavit or otherwise, that the defendant, with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against him,? (a) is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property, or (b) is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court, the court may direct the defendant, within a time to be fixed by it, either to furnish security, in such sum as may be specified in the order, to produce and place at the disposal of the court, when required, the said property or the value of the same, or such portion thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the decree, or to appear and show cause why he should not furnish security. (2) The plaintiff shall, unless the court otherwise directs, specify the property required to be attached and the estimated value thereof. (3) The court may also in the order direct the conditional attachment of the whole or any portion of the property so specified. (4) If an order of attachment is made without complying with the provisions of sub-rule (1) of this rule, such attachment shall be void." The learned Court below, in its order has observed that no such ground has been taken in the application that the plaintiff in any manner is disposing of its property or removing it from the jurisdiction of the Court. It is further observed that no such ground has been taken to satisfy the Court that the plaintiff in any manner can obstruct or delay execution of any decree, the plaintiffs have rather given an undertaking in their objection to the said application that they are resident within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court and they will not leave the jurisdiction of the Court and neither remove the property nor take away any part of it from the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. The learned Trial Court as such has rejected the application C-28 moved by the petitioners-defendants. The counter claim of the petitioners relates to the arrears of rent, damages and possession over the property in question. The suit filed by the plaintiff relates to the title dispute between the parties. The fate of the counter claim totally depend on the outcome of the suit. It is also to be noted that it is the total satisfaction of the Court, so far as the furnishing security for production of property under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code is concerned. The learned Court below has categorically held that there is nothing on record to indicate that the plaintiffs in any manner are intending to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree as may be passed against them. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. However, in the interest of justice it is hereby provided that the learned Court below shall make all possible endeavour to decide the suit, in question expeditiously, giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, in accordance with law. _____________