ORDER : Defendant in the suit filed the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by docket order, dated 18.05.2022 in I.A.No.404 of 2022 in O.S.No.167 of 2020 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District. 2. Respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.167 of 2020 for recovery of amount basing on promissory note. 3. Petitioner/defendant filed written statement and is contesting the suit. 4. Pending the suit, plaintiff filed I.A.No.404 of 2022 under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC seeking attachment of petition schedule property. 5. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended inter alia that petitioner/defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- on 06.05.2018 for family expenses and to discharge sundry debts; that petitioner/defendant executed promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum; that the respondent/plaintiff came to know that the petitioner/defendant was indebted to so many people and that she is trying to alienate the petition schedule property to third parties. Hence, respondent/plaintiff filed present application seeking a direction to the petitioner/defendant to furnish third party security to the suit amount of Rs.9,58,000/- with subsequent interest and costs within stipulated time failing which order of conditional attachment of the petition schedule properties before judgment be passed, till the realization of the suit amount. 6. The said application was filed on 18.05.2022. Notice was served on the other side counsel on the same day. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant made an endorsement, on the petition, seeking time to file counter. However, on the same day the Court below passed docket order, which reads thus: “Moreover, if this Court issued this attachment before judgment order, it will not cause any damage to either parties as the Respondent has right to challenge the pronote which was stated by the petitioner/plaintiff and may disprove the case of the petitioner/plaintiff. Hence, this Court feels that, it is a fit case to issue attachment before judgment to the petition schedule property of respondent/defendant. By considering the circumstances, considering the apprehension of the petitioner issue attachment of the petition schedule property through Court on payment of process and for filing counter of respondent call on 15.06.2022.” 7. Aggrieved by the above order, the present revision is filed. 8. Heard both sides. 9. By considering the circumstances, considering the apprehension of the petitioner issue attachment of the petition schedule property through Court on payment of process and for filing counter of respondent call on 15.06.2022.” 7. Aggrieved by the above order, the present revision is filed. 8. Heard both sides. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that trial Court did not follow the procedure contemplated under Order XXXVIII Rule 5(1) of CPC and hence, order of attachment is void under Order XXXVIII Rule 5(4) of CPC. He relied upon the decision reported in Raman Tech & Process Engg. Co. and Another v. Solanki Traders, 2008 (2) SCC 302 . 10. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, would contend that since the petitioner/defendant is trying to alienate the property, application is filed seeking attachment of the petition schedule property along with third party affidavits. The trial Court has rightly ordered attachment on 18.05.2022 and the attachment was effected on 15.06.2022. Learned counsel for the respondent would further contend that against the order, civil miscellaneous appeal would lie under Order XLIII but not revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. In the light of the arguments, the point that arises for consideration is whether the trial Court has followed the procedure contemplated under Order XXXVIII Rule 5(1) of CPC while passing the order, dated 18.05.2022? 12. Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC reads thus: “5. 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.” 13. A reading of the above provision would indicate that at any stage of the suit, if the Court is satisfied by an affidavit or otherwise that the defendant, with an intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against him/her, is about to dispose of or remove the whole or any part of his property from the local limits of the jurisdiction, the Court shall 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, or such portion thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the decree and show cause as to why he/she should not furnish security. The Court may also in the order direct conditional attachment of the whole or any portion of the property so specified. 14. Sub-rule 4 of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 contemplates that any attachment without complying with the provisions of sub-rule (1), shall be void. 15. The power of court to order attachment before judgment is attracted only when plaintiff plead and proves that the defendant is about to dispose of whole or any part of the property is about to remove from local limits of jurisdiction of the court. Even though such prima facie is proved, still an order attachment cannot be issued without following the procedure mandated in Rule 5 of Order XXXVIII. The Court must direct the defendant to furnish security in such sum as may be specified within the time stipulated. 16. Form 5 in Appendix F of CPC deals with issuance of notice is here with extracted: No.5 ATTACHMENT BEFORE JUDGMENT, WITH ORDER TO CALL FOR SECURITY FOR FULFILMENT OF DECREE (O.38, R5.) (Title) To The Bailiff of the Court. The Court must direct the defendant to furnish security in such sum as may be specified within the time stipulated. 16. Form 5 in Appendix F of CPC deals with issuance of notice is here with extracted: No.5 ATTACHMENT BEFORE JUDGMENT, WITH ORDER TO CALL FOR SECURITY FOR FULFILMENT OF DECREE (O.38, R5.) (Title) To The Bailiff of the Court. WHEREAS.......................has proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the defendant in the above suit...........; These are to command you to call upon the said defendant......................................on or before the................day of......................19....................either to furnish security for the sum of rupees ...............to produce and place at the disposal of this Court when required..................................or the value thereof, or such portion of the value as may be sufficient to satisfy any decree that may be passed against him; or to appear and show cause why he should not furnish security; and you are further ordered to attach the said.................and keep the same under safe and secure custody until the further order of the Court; and you are further commanded to return this warrant on or before the......................day of....... 19....... , with an endorsement certifying the date on which and the manner in which it has been executed, or the reason why it has not been executed. GIVEN under my hand and the seal of the Court, this....................day of............19.......... Judge 17. Division Bench of composite high court in Yenamala Chandra Reddy Vs. Nuvvula Chandramouli Naidu, 1991 (2) ALT 343 held as follows: 17. The first part of the form directs the defendant to furnish security in a particular amount or produce and place at the disposal of the Court the said property or its value or such portion of the value as may be sufficient to satisfy any decree that may be passed against him and also requires the defendant to appear and show cause why he should not furnish security. The first part of the form, therefore, is a re-production of the procedure as to notice envisaged by clause (b) of O. XXXVIII R. 5 (1), but the more important part of the form is the second part and this throws considerable light as to what the legislature meant by the words "conditional attachment". This second part contains a further direction to the Bailiff to attach and it reads as follows: "…and you are further ordered to attach the said. . . . This second part contains a further direction to the Bailiff to attach and it reads as follows: "…and you are further ordered to attach the said. . . . and keep the same under safe and secure custody until the further order of the court;" 18. It will have to be noticed from the Form that the first part referred to above and the second part need not be contained in every order passed under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 C.P.C. This is clear from the word also used in Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 (3). If the court thinks fit merely to order the defendant to furnish security or show cause why security should not be furnished, the order as drafted in the Form will not contain the second part. It is only where the court thinks that pending further orders, there shall also be an order of attachment, as contemplated by Order xxxviii, R. 5 (3) that the second part of the Form will be included in the directions issued to the bailiff. 18. In the case on hand, the order passed by the trial Court does not indicate issuance of any show cause notice. The order impugned as extracted supra indicates that attachment of the property was ordered directly on the application made by the respondent/plaintiff without issuing any such show cause notice. Such an attachment is void under Order XXXVIII Rule 5(4). 19. Apart from the above, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Raman Tech & Process Engg. Co. and Another v. Solanki Traders referred to supra, attachment before judgment under order XXXVIII Rule 5 is a drastic and extraordinary power. Such power should not be exercised mechanically or merely for the asking. It should be used sparingly and strictly in accordance with the Rule. The purpose of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 is not to convert an unsecured debt into a secured debt. Any attempt by a plaintiff to utilize the provisions of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 as leverage for coercing the defendant to settle the suit claim should be discouraged. Instances are not wanting where bloated and doubtful claims are realized by unscrupulous plaintiffs by obtaining orders of attachment before judgment and forcing the defendants for out-of-court settlements under threat of attachment. 20. Instances are not wanting where bloated and doubtful claims are realized by unscrupulous plaintiffs by obtaining orders of attachment before judgment and forcing the defendants for out-of-court settlements under threat of attachment. 20. In view of discussion, in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court failed to follow the procedure contemplated under Order XXXVIII Rule 5(1)(b) while passing order, dated 18.05.2022. Therefore, the same is void under Order XXXVIII Rule 5(4). Hence, the order under revision is liable to be set aside. 21. Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 18.05.2022 in I.A.No.404 of 2022 in O.S.No.167 of 2020 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram. I.A.No.404 of 2022 is restored to its file. 22. The petitioner/respondent shall file counter in I.A.No.404 of 2022 within ten days from today. The trial Court shall advance the I.A, and dispose of I.A.No.404 of 2022, by following the procedure contemplated under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC, within three weeks from the date of filing the counter. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.