JUDGMENT : C.S.DIAS, J. The appellant is the defendant in O.S No.246/2017 on the files of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam. The respondents are the plaintiffs in the suit. 2. The suit is one for recovery of money. 3. Along with the suit, the respondents had filed I.A No.3294/2019, under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity, referred as “Code”), seeking an order of attachment before judgment. 4. The appellant opposed the application by filing a counter affidavit and produced ten documents, to substantiate that the prayer for attachment before judgment was not sustainable in law. 5. The learned Subordinate Judge by the impugned order dated 2.11.2019 has restrained the appellant from alienating the attachment schedule property until further orders. 6. It is assailing the order, this F.A.O is filed. 7. Heard Sri.George Poonthottam, the learned senior counsel for the appellant, assisted by Smt.Nisha George, and Sri.K.R Vinod, the learned counsel for the respondents. 8. It is an undisputed fact that the application was filed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code, seeking a relief for attachment before judgment. 9. The impugned order would establish that the Court below has granted a relief, restraining the appellant from alienating his property. 10. There is no averment in the application that there is any property dispute between the parties, and that a property is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated to attract the provisions of Order XXXIX of the Code. 11. By the impugned order, the Court below has, in effect, passed two sets of orders to secure an anticipated decree, which is erroneous, especially when considering the fact that respondents have not sought for an order of temporary injunction. 12. It is no longer res integra that Courts shall not simultaneously pass two sets of orders under Order XXXVIII and Order XXXIX of the Code. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.G.Quenim and another vs Bandekar Brothers (P) Ltd. [(2002) 10 SCC 513] has held against passing two sets of orders under the two provisions. 13. Reading of the impugned order shows that, it is a combination of both reliefs, under two separate provisions under the Code. Though it may look innocuous, there is a vast difference in the two provisions. A conditional order of attachment can be averted on furnishing security, but not an order under Order XXXIX of the Code. 13. Reading of the impugned order shows that, it is a combination of both reliefs, under two separate provisions under the Code. Though it may look innocuous, there is a vast difference in the two provisions. A conditional order of attachment can be averted on furnishing security, but not an order under Order XXXIX of the Code. 14. In the light of the above findings and the ratio decidendi in V.G.Quenim (supra) we allow this F.A.O in the following terms: (i) the order dated 2.11.2019 in I.A No.3294/2019 in O.S No.246/2019 is set aside. (ii) the direction to intimate the order to the concerned Sub-Registry Office is recalled. (iii) the Court below is directed to consider I.A No.3294/2019 in O.S No.246/2019, in accordance with law, keeping in mind the findings in this judgment, as expeditiously as possible at any rate within one month from the date of production of this judgment.