ORDER : Heard Mr.Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Ghantasala Udaya Bhaskar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by an Order dated 30.12.2021 passed in I.A.No.359 of 2021 in O.S.No.197 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Movva, Krishna District. 3. The petitioner herein is the defendant in the above referred suit. The respondent/plaintiff filed the above referred suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.18,46,875/-. Along with the suit, he filed I.A.No.359 of 2021 under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) seeking attachment of the petition schedule property before Judgment. By an Order dated 30.12.2021, the petitioner/defendant was prohibited and restrained until further Orders from transferring or changing the petition schedule property on the ground that he failed to furnish security within 72 hours from the date of issuance of notice calling upon him to furnish security. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while drawing the attention of this Court to the relevant provisions of Law and the Order under Revision submits that the Order of attachment was passed without issuing notice and without recording satisfaction by the Court, as required under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of CPC. He submits that as the Order of attachment is made without complying with the provisions of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5, the said attachment is void in terms of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of Order XXXVIII of CPC. The learned counsel submits that as seen from the material on record, the notice calling upon the petitioner to furnish security was served on 30.12.2021 and on the very same day, the petition schedule property was attached. Therefore, the impugned Order is liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel while placing reliance on the decisions in G.Pochaiah vs. S.Balachandran & Ors., 2004 (3) APLJ 344 and Ankinapalli Obul Reddy vs. Dadibathina China Gurava Reddy & Others, (2005) 5 ALT 125 submits that the Order under Revision is liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent while contending that the Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable, supported the Order under Revision. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent while contending that the Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable, supported the Order under Revision. He submits that the learned Trail Court passed a detailed Order dated 23.12.2021 and as the petitioner failed to furnish third party security within the time stipulated in terms of the said Order, the Order of attachment came to be passed. He submits that there is no jurisdictional error or perversity in the Order under Revision and that there are no merits warranting interference with the same. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks dismissal of the Revision Petition. With regard to maintainability of the Revision Petition, the learned counsel places reliance on the decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vs. M/s. Bhagyanagar Ventures Ltd., AIR 2010 Andhra Pradesh 96. 6. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. As an issue with regard to maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent, this Court deems it appropriate to deal with the same before considering the merits of the matter. 7. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd., referred to supra on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the respondent, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court was dealing with the provisions of the Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of CPC. The Division Bench in Para 5 of the said Judgment categorically held that :- “5. The power of the Court to order attachment before judgment is attracted only when plaintiff pleads and prima facie proves two conditions precedent. These are: that the defendant is about to dispose of whole or any part of his property and defendant is about to remove the property from local limits of jurisdiction of the Court. Even when such prima facie case is proved, an order of attachment cannot be straight away issued without following procedure contemplated in Rule 5 of Order XXXVIII of CPC. The said Rule requires the Court to direct defendant to furnish security in such a sum as may be specified within the time stipulated by the Court.” 8. Even when such prima facie case is proved, an order of attachment cannot be straight away issued without following procedure contemplated in Rule 5 of Order XXXVIII of CPC. The said Rule requires the Court to direct defendant to furnish security in such a sum as may be specified within the time stipulated by the Court.” 8. The Division Bench after referring to the relevant Forms of Appendix-F of CPC, dealt with the stages with regard to furnishing security by the defendant/s in a suit and categorically held that “after issuing notice/Order of attachment before Judgment in Form No.5 calling for security from defendant for fulfilment of the decree that may be passed against him, the Court has to necessarily wait till the time fixed thereon is completed”. The Division Bench at Para 7 of the Judgment held that ‘if after receiving the said show cause notice within the time stipulated in Form No.5 proceedings, the defendant fails to appear before the Court or appears and fails to satisfy the Court, the Court can issue an Order in Form No.7 directing attachment of property. The Law contemplates appeal only at the second stage actually attaching the property and not at the stage of show cause notice’. The Division Bench after referring to the decision of another Division Bench in Union of India vs. M/s. Andhra Technocrats Industries, 1982 (2) ALT 19 (NRC), extracted the relevant portion of the said decision, which reads as follows:- “An order dismissing an application under Order 38, Rule (5) is not appealable. An order under Rule 5 merely directing the defendant to furnish security or to appear and show cause why security should not be furnished is not appealable. Only an order allowing an application under Rule 5 and an order withdrawing the attachment made under sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 on cause being shown by the defendant, are appealable... In this case, there was no interim order of attachment passed under sub-rule (3) of Rule 5. Only an order was passed by the Court under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 directing issue of notice to the defendant to show cause why he should not furnish security and on the defendant appearing and showing cause in answer to the notice to the Court, dismissed the application. There was no interim attachment passed under sub-rule (3) of Rule 5. There was no interim attachment passed under sub-rule (3) of Rule 5. Therefore, the order passed by the Court below does not fall within sub-rule (2) of Rule 6. Therefore, the Order passed by the lower Court is not appealable.” 9. In the light of the said legal position, the Division Bench in the attending facts and circumstances held that appeal is not maintainable against the Order calling upon to furnish security. There is no dispute about the above stated legal position. However, the said decision is of no aid to the respondent, since there is no compliance with the requirements of Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of CPC in the present case. 10. For ready reference, the said Rule may be extracted as hereunder:- Rule 5 Order XXXVIII of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 "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. 11. (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. 11. In the case on hand, an Order was passed on 23.12.2021 in I.A.No.389 of 2021, the relevant portion of which reads as follows :- “It is the contention of the petitioner/plaintiff that the respondent/defendant is trying to alienate the schedule property in order to default the bona fide creditors. If the respondent succeed in his attempt it will be difficult for the Petitioner to realize the fruits of the decree that may be passed against him. Issue urgent notice and conditional attachment of the petition schedule property. Attach petition schedule property, if the respondent/defendant fails to furnish third party security to the tune of suit amount within 72 hours.” 12. The material on record would go to show that the notice calling upon the petitioner to furnish security was served on 30.12.2021. The endorsement of the concerned Superintendent of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Movva, Krishna District in this regard reads thus:- “Note: The call for security notice personally served on 30.12.2021. Respondent security not furnished.” 13. The above aspect would make it clear that the Order of the attachment was passed on the very same day i.e., 30.12.2021 without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner herein to respond to the notice calling upon him to furnish sufficient security as required under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5(1)(b) of CPC. Therefore, the Order is not sustainable in terms of the Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 (4) of CPC, as there is no compliance with Sub-rule (1)(b) of the said Rule. 14. Further, the learned Trial Court also failed to record its satisfaction before passing the Order of attachment as required under the above referred provision of Law. In G.Pochaiah’s case referred to supra, it was held as follows:- “11. The law is well settled that before passing an order under Order 38 Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code, it is mandatory for the Court to satisfy itself that the defendant is intending to obstruct or delay the execution of the decree that maybe passed against him. In G.Pochaiah’s case referred to supra, it was held as follows:- “11. The law is well settled that before passing an order under Order 38 Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code, it is mandatory for the Court to satisfy itself that the defendant is intending to obstruct or delay the execution of the decree that maybe passed against him. It is also well settled that simple mention of the apprehension in the affidavit or reproduction of the language used in Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC in the absence of disclosing the source of such apprehension or information is not sufficient compliance with the mandatory provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of Order 38 of C.P.C. 12. On a perusal of the material on record, I find force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order of attachment is not at all warranted on the basis of the vague averments in the affidavit filed in support of the application. It is relevant to note that the impugned order does not reflect the satisfaction of the Court or at least application of its mind to the requirements of Order 38 Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code. Such an order where the Court failed to record its satisfaction that the defendant with an intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against him is about to dispose of the whole or any part of the property being in violation of Order 38 Rule 5 (1) of C.P.C. is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.” 15. In Ankinapalli Obul Reddy’s case, a similar view was taken by another learned Judge while setting aside the Order of attachment, wherein it was held as follows:- “8. As can be seen from the above provision the Court has to satisfy itself that the defendant with an intention to obstruct or delay execution of any decree that may be passed against him is in the process of disposing of the whole or any part of the property, then only after recording such satisfaction, it shall call upon the petitioner to furnish security stipulating certain time and if he does not furnish sufficient security, it is open for the Court to order attachment before judgment. But as can be seen from the order the lower Court only extracted contentions of the petitioner as well as the 1st respondent-plaintiff, but did not record the satisfaction as to whether the petitioner is likely to dispose of the whole or any part of his property, which is a mandatory requirement and if this requirement is not followed the entire attachment becomes void under sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of Order XXXVIII.” 16. In the light of the above stated factual and legal position, this Court is of the considered view that the Order under Revision suffers from material irregularity and warrants interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 17. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly, allowed. The Order dated 30.12.2021 passed in I.A.No.359 of 2021 in O.S.No.197 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Movva, Krishna District is set aside. There shall be no Order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.