Judgment : 1. The defendant in the original suit O.S.No.8 of 2009 pending on the file of Additional District Court (Fast Track Court I), Salem is the petitioner in the revision. The suit was filed for recovery of money based on the pronote. Pending disposal of the suit, I.A.No.148/2011 in O.S.No.8/2009 came to be filed under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC for attachment before judgment. Before ever any order directing attachment of the property could be passed, the property that was sought to be attached was transferred by the revision petitioner to a third party. 2. The learned trial judge held that the said transfer was hit by the principle of lis pendens because of the pendency of the petition for attachment before attachment, besides being a fraudulent transfer to defeat the rights of the creditor, namely the respondent herein. So far as the first reason assigned by the learned trial judge is concerned, the pendency of the petition for attachment before judgment shall not attract the principle of lis pendens and it is a well established principle that attachment shall take effect only from the date of actual attachment. The suit is not one for claiming any right in the property and it is purely a money suit. So far as the other reason assigned by the learned trial judge is concerned, the transfer being fraudulent to defeat or delay the right of the creditors shall not make the transfer automatically void. As per Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it is only voidable and the person who wants to avoid it has to file a suit not for himself alone, but on behalf of all the creditors whose rights are said to be defeated or delayed by such transaction. No such suit came to be filed by the respondent herein. Hence both the reasons assigned by the learned trial judge in support of the impugned order passed are unsustainable. 3. By the impugned order dated 12.01.2012, the learned trial judge has directed the revision petitioner to furnish security and in the event of failure to furnish security within the time stipulated therein to attach the property, which has already been sold and transferred to a third party. The order directing furnishing security shall not be the end of the proceedings in the Attachment Before Judgment petition. The order directing furnishing security shall not be the end of the proceedings in the Attachment Before Judgment petition. In case the respondent/defendant fails to furnish security, the same shall not lead to either passing of a decree against the defendant or striking of his defence in the suit. On the other hand, it will lead to the execution of the latter part of the order, namely attachment of the property shown as the subject matter of the attachment before judgment petition. 4. A person, who seeks attachment before judgment, should identify the property regarding which attachment is sought for. The only property identified by the respondent for attachment before judgment is the property, which has already gone out of the hands of the revision petitioner. Under such circumstances, the order passed by the learned trial judge cannot stand the scrutiny of this court and the same deserves to be set aside. 5. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed. The impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge (FTC I), Salem dated 12.01.2012 made in I.A.No.148/2011 in O.S.No.8 of 2009 is set aside. I.A.No.148/2011 shall stand dismissed not on the ground that the respondent is not entitled to seek an order of attachment before judgment, but on the ground that the property shown in the schedule of properties for attachment before judgment is not available for attachment. It shall be open to the respondent/plaintiff to file a fresh petition for attachment before judgment, after identifying a property to be attached. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner bringing it to the notice of this court that a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- deposited to the credit of the suit by the revision petitioner and prays that he shall be permitted to withdraw the said sum deposited by him to the credit of the suit. The above said prayer cannot be sustained. Let it be there in the court deposit to the credit of the suit, the fate of which shall depend upon the outcome of the suit. There shall be no order as to cost in the civil revision petition. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.