provisions of sub-rule (1) of this rule, such orders of attachment shall be void. Now in the present cases, after being satisfied with the case of the respondent/plaintiff in each of the suit that there is overwhelming evidence for disposal of whole or any part of the properties, in such event, the Court below ought to have directed the appellant/defendant to furnish security by passing a separate order giving an opportunity. As no such order has been passed directing the appellant/defendant to furnish security, the impugned decretal orders are running contrary to the provisions of Order 38, Rule 5(1)(b) and Rule 5 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, the impugned decretal orders are liable to be set aside. Finally, Mr.N.Suresh also submitted that although the Court below has passed the impugned decretal orders directing half share in both the items of properties to be attached before judgment, the appellant/defendant is prepared to furnish the second item of property as security, wherein he has got 3/4 share and the balance 1/4 share belonging to his mother to satisfy the claim made in the suits. He also made it clear that the appellant/defendant and his mother are also prepared to file individual affidavits before the trial Court to that effect.
