9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (2) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as a third party in the suit, had offered the properties belonging to the second revision petitioner/third party as security. Learned Subordinate Judge had rejected it stating that the property offered by the third party as security cannot be accepted. Aggrieved by that order, C.R.P. No. 1638 of 1992 is filed by the defendant as well as the third party, as revision petitioners. After rejecting the security offered by the third-party, learned Subordinate Judge, has passed an order of attachment. Aggrieved by the order of attachment before judgment, C.M.A. No. 509 of 1992 is filed. 3. Mr. R. Sekar, learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/appellants would submit that the court below is wrong in rejecting the security furnishe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e passed against him, - (a) is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his properly, 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 other-wise directs, specify the property required, to be attached and the estimated value thereof. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property specified in the said schedule, or the value of the same, or such portion thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the decree, and in default of his so doing I bind myself, my heirs and executors, to pay to the said Court, at its order, the said sum of Rs. .. or such sum not exceeding the said sum as the said Court may adjudge. Schedule Witness my hand at this day of 19 (Signed) Witness 1 . 2 . 6. It is evident that Order 38, Rule 6, C.P.C. merely refers to the security. It does not refer to the nature of security. It does not indicate that it is not open to the defendant to furnish the third-party security, personal or property. A reading of Form No. 6 in Appendix F of C.P.C. would show that if the personal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
