JUDGMENT :- 1. This civil revision petition is filed against an order made in unnumbered I.A. whereby the Court below has rejected the application filed by the petitioner to raise an order of attachment. 2. Notice was ordered in the civil revision petition to both the respondents. The first respondent though served privately he has not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel and his name printed in the cause list. The second respondent is represented through counsel. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the first respondent. 4. The first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.528/2001 on the file of the Sub Court, Coimbatore against the second respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,17,700/-with interest. During the pendency of the suit, an order of attachment before judgment came to be passed in respect of the properties under dispute, on 13.08.2001. Subsequently, the suit itself came to be decreed exparte on 04.02.2002. Now, the petitioner, who is a third party, filed an application before the court below under Order 38 Rule 10 C.P.C. praying for raising the order of attachment in respect of the petition mentioned property on the ground that he has purchased the said property from the second respondent herein who is the judgment debtor on 13.07.2001 itself i.e. exactly a month earlier to the order of attachment before judgment. Thus, it is his contention that he being not a party to the proceedings, his property cannot be attached. 5. The court below rejected the said application even before numbering the same and without issuing notice to the other side. The court below by its order dated 20.01.2012 observed that the sale of the property in favour of the petitioner is only to obstruct or delay the decree passed against the judgment debtor. 6. On a careful consideration of facts and circumstances of the case as well as the order passed by the court below, I am of the view that the court below ought to have numbered the application and decided the matter on merits and in accordance with law after hearing both sides, especially under the circumstances, when the petitioner has come out with the plea that his purchase was much earlier to the order of attachment dated 13.08.2001. The general observation of the court below that the sale was effected only to delay and obstruct the decree, is not proper at this stage without hearing the parties and considering the merits of the matter in detail. 7. Accordingly, I find that the order passed by the court below is not proper and the same is liable to be set aside. Thus, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order passed by the court below dated 20.01.2012 in unnumbered I.A. is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below for hearing the application on merits after giving due opportunity of hearing to both sides. The court below is directed to dispose of the application within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.