JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) Present Civil Revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 11.07.2014 passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Dehradun, on the application under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C. read with Order 39 Rules, 1, 2 & 3 read with Section 151 C.P.C. in Suit No. 257 of 2013, Smt. Sushila vs. Amit Kumar Aggarwal and another. 2. The plaintiff/revisionist filed a civil suit against the defendant/respondent no.1 for recovery of Rs. 1,37,40,800/- along with interest. After institution of the suit, at the initial stage, the plaintiff (revisionist herein) moved an application under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C. read with Order 39 Rules 1, 2 & 3 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. Following were the averments of such an application: “1. That the plaintiff has filed the captioned suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,37,40,800/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. pending and future till realization. 2. That the plaintiff has stated in para no. 4 of the plaint that she purchased the property in suit for a sum of Rs. 95 lacs vide sale-deed datd 11.05.2010. The said sale-deed was registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Dehradun and recorded in Book No. 1, Volume 3128, pages 395 to 496 at No. 3576 dated 12.05.2010 3. That the aforesaid sale-deed was executed/registered by the defendant no. 1 through his Attorney/defendant no.2. 4. That after the execution of the sale-deed aforesaid, the plaintiff came to know that the property in suit had been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. It was further found that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had given/published his Award on 20.03.2008 and a total sum of Rs. 3,01,98,870/- had been awarded. The defendant no. 1’s share is 35 %, therefore, he is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,05,69,605/- out of the total amount of Award. 5. That the awarded amount is lying in deposit with the office of Special land Acquisition Officer, Dehraudn. 6. That the defendants did not disclose at the time of execution of Sale-deed that the property in suit had been acquired and that the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Dehradun had even awarded compensation for the acquisition made in respect of property no. 8, Chander Road, Dehradun. 7. 6. That the defendants did not disclose at the time of execution of Sale-deed that the property in suit had been acquired and that the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Dehradun had even awarded compensation for the acquisition made in respect of property no. 8, Chander Road, Dehradun. 7. That the plaintiff has filed the captioned suit for recovery of R.s 1,37,40,800/- being the principal amount and the expenses incurred towards purchase of Stamp Paper etc. as well as interest incurring thereon. 8. That the plaintiff has every hope of success in the aforesaid suit and there is every likelihood that the suit shall be decreed with cost as against the defendants. 9. That the defendant no. 1is making all efforts to withdraw 35% of the awarded amount lying in deposit with Special Land Acquisition Officer, Dehradun. His efforts are continued. So far, he has not succeeded in his such designs, however, in case he succeeds in his attempts in withdrawing the aforesaid amount, irreparable injury shall accrue to the plaintiff. 10. That it is further learnt that the defendants are about to withdraw/remove the entire amount to the extent of defendant no. 1’s share from the office of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Dehradun. 11. That it would therefore be just and proper to attached the aforesaid sum of Rs. 1,05,69,605/- (being 35% of the total awarded amount) and to produce and place at the disposal of the Court when ordered, as may be sufficient to satisfy the decree, which is likely to be passed against the defendant no. 1. It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to order attachment of a sum of Rs.1,05,69,605/- (being 35% share of the defendant no.1 of the total awarded amount) lying in deposit with Special Land Acquisition Officer, Dehradun and not to release the same in favour of the defendants and further be produced the said sum in the Court when ordered.” 3. The respondent no.1/defendant filed objection against the same. One of the objection of the defendant no.1 was that there was no averment or evidence to show that the defendant is leaving the jurisdiction of the Court. Another objection, which was taken by the defendant, was that the defendant is not even entitled to receive the said amount. Also that there is no averment to the effect that such an amount was lying with the Land Acquisition Officer. Another objection, which was taken by the defendant, was that the defendant is not even entitled to receive the said amount. Also that there is no averment to the effect that such an amount was lying with the Land Acquisition Officer. 4. This has been said by the defendant in paras 4 & 5 of his objection to the application under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C. read with Order 39 Rules 1, 2 & 3 C.P.C. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 11.07.2014. 6. Learned Court below has discussed the ingredients of the Order 38 rule 5 C.P.C., which are reproduced herein below for reference: 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.] 7. Learned Court below has also entered into the technicalities while passing the impugned order to show that the affidavit filed in support thereof is no affidavit in the eye of law in view of Prem Raj Mundra vs. Md. Maneck Gazi reported in AIR 1951 Cal 156 . Learned Court below has also entered into the technicalities while passing the impugned order to show that the affidavit filed in support thereof is no affidavit in the eye of law in view of Prem Raj Mundra vs. Md. Maneck Gazi reported in AIR 1951 Cal 156 . Learned Trial Court has also said that the details of property are not specific in the allegation. He has also discussed the requirements of law governing the field as were observed by Hon’ble Orissa High Court in Lt. Col. S. Bakshi vs. Jagdish Singh Sabarwal, reported in 2001 (1) CCC 537. This Court is inclined to accept the conclusion arrived at by the Court blow, although with different reasons. 8. There is no prima facie evidence on record that the defendant with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against him – (a) is about dispose of the whole or any part of this 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, Therefore, there was no question on the part of the Court below to direct the defendant to furnish the security for any sum, as may be sufficient to satisfy the decree. 9. The defendant in his objection has also denied that such money is lying with the SLAO and even went on to explain that no matter of acquisition has been decided involving defendant no.1. 10. Since there is no prima facie evidence to show that the amount is lying with the SLAO, therefore, there was no occasion for the court below to have directed the requisite amount to be attached. An application under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C. filed on behalf of the plaintiff could not have succeeded before the court below also because, there is no prima facie evidence on record to show that the defendant was entitled to receive the amount. Further, there is not even an iota of evidence to show that the defendant is trying to flee away from justice in terms of his property, trying to remove his property from the jurisdiction of the Court, or is trying to dispose of his property. 11. The order impugned is, therefore, not intereferable. 12. Civil Revision, accordingly, fails and is dismissed.