ORDER
Y. Bhaskar Rao, J.
1. These three revision petitions are filed against the common order dt.3-9-92 passed in I.A.No. 888/91, I.A.No. 562/92 and I.A.No. 316/92inI.A.No. 574/91in O.S.No. 135/91 by the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.
2. The petitioner in these revision petitions is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant before the lower court. It filed the suit in O.S.No. 135/91 in the Court of III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad for recovery of money. The petitioner also filed I.A.No. 888/91 to pass conditional attachment orders directing the respondent/defendant to furnish security for the suit amount or else to attach the movables mentioned therein, I. A.No. 562 /92 to call upon the respondent/defendant to honour the undertaking given in LA. No. 574/91, and I.A.No. 316/92 in I.A.No. 574/91 to direct the respondent-defendant to deposit the articles mentioned in the Memo dt. 15-7-91 in the Court to the credit of the suit. After inquiry, the lower court dismissed all the three I.As. holding that the respondent has not committed breach of undertaking and the surety bond given in I.A.No. 574/91 and therefore it cannot be directed to deposit the articles mentioned in the Memo dt.15-7-91 and that the personal articles mentioned in I.A.No. 888/91 are not liable to the attached before judgment since the surety bond executed by the respondent is still in subsistence and in force. Against the dismissal of those three I.As., these revisions are filed.
3. Heard both the learned counsel. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the property of the respondent was seized by the State Financial Corporation, the petitioner filed the above stated I.A.S, and therefore the lower court should have granted attachment before judgment. He further contended that even software computers have been sold in pursuance of the notification issued by the A.P State Financial Corporation and they are not available at the factory premises. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the surety bond was executed giving software computers as security and that the notification issued by the A.P State Financial Corporation is with respect to some of the properties at factory premises at Kukatpally and some computers have been sold under that notification. He further submitted that the software computers given as security for the suit amount are not sold and they are intact with the respondent and therefore the order of the court below does not call for any interference.
4. In view of the above controversy, I do not want to go into the merits of the contentions. In the circumstances, I feel it just and proper that an Advocate-Commissioner should be appointed to inspect the business premises of the respondent/defendant as shown in the surety bond, or if the business premises is changed, the place where business is being carried on by the respondent and find out whether the software computers are there or not. If the Advocate-Commissioner finds that the software computers are there, then the proceedings may be closed. If the Advocate-Commissioner finds that there are no software computers, then further action may be taken to see that the surety bond given is intact, pending disposal of the suit.
5. The Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly disposed of.