ADDURU DASARATHA RAMI REDDY Vs. VAMIREDDY VISHNU MINOR
LAWS(APH)-1992-4-50
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on April 20,1992

ADDURU DASARATHA RAMI REDDY Appellant
VERSUS
VAMIREDDY VISHNU (MINOR) Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

KALIANNA KOUNDER VS. MARAPPA KOUNDER [LAWS(MAD)-1993-2-50] [REFERRED TO]
MARY MATHA COLLGE OF ENGINEERING VS. PREETHI ELIZABETH IYPE [LAWS(KER)-2007-2-583] [REFERRED TO]
REGHUNATH VS. JEEVADHARA INSTITUTE OF NUERO DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH [LAWS(KER)-2020-9-160] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)All these revision petitions were heard together, as the same point is involved.
(2.)The point which falls for consideration is as to what security has to be furnished under O. 38, R. 6 of C.P.C. The facts Which give rise to the above point are as under: The revision petitioners herein are the defendants in OS Nos.270/91, 223/91, 219/91,221/91,225/91 and 227/91, Principal Sub Court, Tirupathi respectively. The plaintiffs-respondents in the respective suits filed petitions under O.38, R. 5 of C.P.C. for attachment before judgment of the properties referred to in the petitions. The lower Court ordered the revision petitioners to furnish security for the suit amounts failing which the attachment should be effected. Then Smt. B. Pandmaja the sister of the second revision petitioner agreed to furnish security for the suit amounts in all these cases. It is submitted for the surety that she is having 1/4th undivided share in the building under the name and style of Jyothi Talkies and the total value of the said building, is Rupees 33,00,000/- even as per the market value certified by the Sub Registrar and thus her share is Rs. 8,00,000.00 and odd. When these revision petitioners filed I.As. to accept the security furnished by Smt. B. Padmaja, the lower Court dismissed those petitions by observing as under:
"The security furnished by the respondent in any view is not complying the said orders and the security that has furnished by the respondent is not acceptable as the surety is a third party security. As per the said orders the respondent has to furnish his self-security, not the security of the third party. Hence the petition is dismissed attaching the petition schedule property."
The above portion of the order is similar in all these cases. They are assailed in these revision petitions,
(3.)It is convenient to extract O.38, R. 6 of C.P.C. to consider the point and it is as under:
"1) Where the defendant fails to show cause why he should not furnish security, or fails to furnish the security required, within the time fixed by the Court, the Court may order that the property specified, or such portion thereof as appears sufficient to satisfy any decree which may be passed in the suit, be attached. 2) Where the defendant shows, such cause or furnishes the required security, and the property specified or any portion of it has been attached, the Court shall order the attachment to be withdrawn, or make such other order as it think fit."

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.