JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) - The appellants have claimed possession over the property in dispute as a lessee. The suit for recovery filed by the plaintiffs was decreed on 23.02.1987 and in execution 2/3rd share in the sheller in question was sold and Sale Certificate was also issued in favour of the auction purchaser. The appellants, allegedly in possession as a lessee filed objections under Section 47 read with Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC alleging that they are statutory tenants and even, if the property has been purchased by the auction purchaser, they would remain there as his tenant and could only be dispossessed in due course of law. However, learned Courts below have rejected their arguments while referring to Section 64(1) of CPC observing that if the property in dispute is attached, any transfer or delivery of attached property will be void. It is the case of the appellants that the property in dispute was attached in terms of Order 38 Rule 5 of the CPC on 18.08.1983 whereas they were inducted as lessee on 05.09.1985. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the proceeding of attachment initiated under Order 38 Rule 5 of the CPC is void. According to him, the learned trial Court, while passing the order of attachment on 18.10.1983 did not comply with Order 38 Rule 5 (1) of CPC which requires a notice and opportunity to the defendant to furnish the security of the amount involved in the suit for recovery. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and after examining the record, am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in his argument. The order dated 18.08.1983 by which the property in dispute was attached under Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC reads as under:- “This is an application under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC by the applicant/plaintiff for attachment of the property of the defendant/respondent on the allegations that the respondent/defendant are bent upon to alienate the land, building, machinery and other assets to defeat the claim of the plaintiff/applicant. The application is supported by an sworn affidavit of the plaintiff/applicant. The applicant/plaintiff has also given the details of the property in the application. The application is supported by an sworn affidavit of the plaintiff/applicant. The applicant/plaintiff has also given the details of the property in the application. In these circumstances the defendant/respondent are directed to furnish security in the sum of Rs.6,00,000/- for a period of 6 months, failing which the property mentioned in the application will be attached.” 4. A bare look at the aforesaid order would make it apparent that the Court had granted an opportunity to the defendant therein to furnish security in the sum of Rs.6,00,000/- for a period of 6 months and in case of its failure, he was threatened that the property would be attached. There is no order produced by learned counsel for the petitioner as to what happened thereafter. The fact remains that the property in dispute was attached by order of the Court much before it was allegedly leased-out to the present appellants. It is also not disputed that the possession has already been taken by the auction purchaser. 5. In these circumstances, the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is non-compliance of Order 38 Rule 5(1) CPC is inconsequential and in view of Section 64(1) of CPC, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————