- (1.) These tvo civil revision petitions arise out of the two suits being C. S, Nos. 33 and 36 of 1981 respectively on the file of the learned Civil Judge. Yadagiri, and are preferred agains: a common order passed by the learned Civil Judge on I.A. 2 filed in each, one cf the suits in question. I. A. 2 was filed by the petitioner under Order 38 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the CPC for an order of attachment before judgment of the claim amount payable by the United India General Insurance Co. Madras, Branch at Raichur to M/s. Dhanalakshmi Trading Co. (defendant-1) in a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs in connection v/ith the fire accident at Raichur Agriculture Produce Marketing and Processing Centre, Cotton Kapas Raichur.
(2.) Both the suits have been filed by the Stale Bank of Hyderabad, which is the petitioner in both these revision petitions. The prayer made in the application (I. A. 2) filed in both the suits is the same and the allegations made in the affidavits filed in support of the applications are also similar The trial Court, on consideration of. "he averments made in the affidavits filed in support of the applications, has held that no cose is made out for passing an order for attachment" before judgment and has accordingly rejected the applications .
(3.) It is contended, by Shri Shah, learned Counsel on behalf of Mis. King and Partridge for the petitioner in bath the civil revision petitions, that the petitionerr has gon a very heavy claim against the respondents who are indebted to a large extent; that if an order for attachment before judgment is not passed, the petitioner will not be able to reap the fruits of the decree which it may secure in the suits in question. It is also further concended that the debts incurred by the respondents are disproportionate to their assets.;