J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) This revision petition arises out of an application under Order 38, rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed on behalf of the defendant -petitioner in the trial Court, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 19th of March, 1980.
(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the plaintiff respondent that this revision petition is not competent as the impugned order is appealable under Order 43, rule 1(q) of the Code Civil Procedure. According to the learned counsel, the impugned order falls under Order 36, sub -rule (2) bf rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides: - 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security, and the property specified or any portion of it has been attached, the Court shall order the attachment to be withdrawn, or make such order as it thinks fit. In support of this contention, he referred to T.R. Punnavanam Pillai v/s. Muthuswami Achari : A.I.R. 1962 Mad 444.
(3.) In reply to this objection, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is covered under Order 38, rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and not under rule 6 as contended by the respondents. In support of his contention, he referred to Smt. Vidhya Devi v/s. Shri Harish Chander and another, A.I.R. 1969 J. & K. 22, and Messrs, Madan Theatres Ltd. v/s. Hari Das : A.I.R. 1936 Lah 33.;