JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Abhay Sambre, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajnish Vyas, learned counsel for respondent sole. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties. 3. The most fundamental aspect of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the property in respect of which order is sought must be the one which is about to be disposed of with a view to defeat the execution of the decree that may be passed against the defendant. 4. In the present case, certain sum of money is in the hands of the defendant i.e. the respondent herein. But that money has been received by him in Land Acquisition Proceedings as a compensation for taking away his source of livelihood. The respondent says that he intends to utilize such money for purchasing seeds and other articles and also to repay the loan taken by him from different persons so that he can at least augment his income and make good for the loss that he suffered after loosing one piece of land, by concentrating on another piece of land available with him. If the respondent says so, I feel, it would not amount to an admission, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, that respondent is intending to dispose of the money received by him, not as sale-proceeds, but as compensation for the permanent loss suffered by him after deprivation of his means of livelihood, to defeat the execution of the decree. After all, the respondent would have a right to be secure at least in one source of livelihood, which is compensation money here, when his original source of livelihood has been taken away by the State. Then, there is no material present on record showing that respondent can reliably bank upon his other piece of land for earning sufficient income. These facts, would not take this case within the scope of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC. As such, no patent illegality is found in the impugned order. 5. The writ petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs. 6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought extension of the interim order passed by this Court to enable the petitioner to challenge this order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As such, no patent illegality is found in the impugned order. 5. The writ petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs. 6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought extension of the interim order passed by this Court to enable the petitioner to challenge this order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Shri Rajnish Vyas, the learned counsel for the respondent, has opposed the request for extension of interim relief. Considering the reasons which have weighed with me in passing the final order, I am of the view that the request cannot be granted and is rejected.