ORDER : Saumitra Dayal Singh, J. 1. Besides the fact that the stamp reporter has reported certain defects in the present revision, the matter has been proceeded. 2. Challenge has been raised in the present revision to the order dated 28.9.2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ballia, on application paper No. 6-C filed under Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') in pending Original Suit No. 31 of 2020 (Santosh Kumar Gupta v. Indu Singh). 3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant-in-revision is that the learned court below misapplied itself and thus wrongly rejected the application filed by the applicant under Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code on the reasons disclosed in the order being that at present, it is not clear whether the suit would be decreed in favour of the applicant and, therefore, Order 38, Rule 5 application cannot be allowed at this stage. Second, it has been submitted that the learned court below has erred in giving reason that the defendant having legal rights over the property cannot be prejudiced by creating a lien over the immovable property owned by him. 4. While the aforesaid submissions may have carried weight and required the court to examine the matter further, at the same time, perusal of the application filed by the applicant under Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code discloses that other than vague and general allegations made that the defendant was seeking to dispose of the property, there is no specification made either by date when such transaction had been contemplated nor the other details of the parties with whom such transaction may have been attempted, disclosed. 5. The requirements of the Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code are quite specific and the court cannot act on mere unfounded apprehensions. The applicant had to establish by means of an affidavit or otherwise that the defendant was seeking to obstruct or delay execution of any decree that may be passed against him in the pending suit by disposing of the whole or a part of the property etc. 6. In absence of such disclosure, the learned court below may never have had the occasion to pass any effective order under Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code. 6. In absence of such disclosure, the learned court below may never have had the occasion to pass any effective order under Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code. Since in the present case, on the face of the record, prima facie burden is not shown to have discharged by the plaintiff, I am not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the learned court below. 7. Accordingly, the present revision lacks merit and is dismissed. However, dismissal of the present revision may not prevent the applicant from filing another/better application at the appropriate stage, if the cause arises.