( 1 ) I have had the advantage of reading in advance the judgment in draft prepared by my learned Brother Ch. S. R. K. Prasad, J. I am in respectful agreement with my learned Brother that the appeal has to be allowed and the order impugned in the appeal has to be set aside and IA No. 2957 of 2001 is liable to be dismissed. However, I propose to add comments of my own.

( 2 ) THIS civil miscellaneous appeal filed under Order 43, Rule 1 (q) of CPC is directed against an order and decree dated 29-11-2001 passed in IA No. 2957 of 2001 in OS No. 540 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The appellant in this appeal is the 1st defendant and the respondents in this appeal are the plaintiffs in the suit OS No. 540 of 2001. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,89,340/- with interest and costs from the 1st defendant-the appellant, basing on the debt vouchers signed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiffs. In the said suit, the plaintiffs filed the petition IA No. 2957 of 2001, under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC to grant attachment before judgment by attaching cash of Rs. 4 lakhs lying in deposit with the Court of the Special Judge for Economic offences, Nampally, Hyderabad in Case No. SWG/ref/icd/ts/ 2/97-CUS (SHB) pending disposal of the suit. The material averments in the affidavit filed in support of IA No. 2957 of 2001 sworn to by Sri H. S. Sethi, the 2nd petitioner, reads as follows:"i most humbly submit that the defendant No. 1 herein is making all attempts even by attempting to withdraw the deposit amount deposited with the defendant No. 2 herein towards surety for grant of bail in case No. F No. SG/ref/icd/ts/2/97-Cus (SHB) and if the attachment before judgment is not granted it will be very difficult to recover the dues from the defendant No. 1. "ia No. 2957 of 2001 was opposed by the 1st defendant - the appellant by filing a detailed counter-affidavit. Paras (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10) read as follows:4. "i submit that the petitioners have not approached the Hon ble Court with clean hands and the petitioners filed the above suit and present IA by suppressing true and correct facts on the basis of fabricated and tempered documents with ulterior motives which will be detailed in the following paragraphs and hence the petitioners are not entitled for the equitable relief sought in the above IA and hence the IA is liable to be dismissed. 5. I submit that I have not borrowed any amount from the petitioners as claimed by them and similarly the amount of Rs. 4-00 lakhs deposited by me as surety in criminal Court was given by my mother with which either the petitioners or Mr. Daljeet Singh have no concerned whatsoever. The entire suit claim is false and bogus and the same is cooked up by fabricating, tampering and creating documents with ulterior motives, which will be detailed in the following paragraphs. 6. I submit that petitioner No. 1 is a Limited Company in which I along with my wife holding equity shares numbering about 50,000/- with the face value of Rs. 10/- each which are lying in the premises of petitioner No. 1-Company. The mother of the 2nd petitioner is my real sister. I was appointed as Consultant and also authorised signatory of 1st petitioner s company in the year 1996 in order to look after various matters of the company. I use to draw consultancy charges as required exclusive of expenses such as travelling charges, entertainment charges and other expenses incidental to my work as Consultant and also authorised signatory on behalf of petitioner No. 1. The original resolution relating to the above is with the petitioners and they are hereby called upon to produce the same. 7. I submit that after I was appointed as Consultant and authorised signatory of petitioner No. 1, my signatures were taken on blank letter head sheets of petitioner No. 1 -Company and other companies i. e. , Ace Builders and Developers (P) Limited, whit