JUDGMENT :

G.S. PATEL J.

1. The Appeal is directed against an order of 5th September 2019 made by the learned single Judge, RI Chagla J on a motion filed by the Original Plaintiff. The Appellants before us were Respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7 to the motion. They are not parties to the suit. The suit said that Defendant No. 2 had embezzled vast amounts from the Plaintiff. Then, in collusion and connivance, the 3rd Defendant and the 2nd Defendant’s brother-in-law, the 4th Defendant, sought to use those embezzled funds to acquire various properties.

2. The suit makes no claim for the properties. It is a suit for a money decree to recoup the loss, and for compensation.

3. The elaborate and careful judgment of Chagla J sets out in meticulous detail the relevant facts. Not all of these are necessary for our purposes. Before we turn to those facts, we must accept without qualification a threshold submission by Mr Cama that this being an order on an interlocutory application by the trial court, settled law does not permit the appeal court to interfere unless the impugned order is shown to be not reasonably possible or to be capricious, perverse or arbitrary. In this context he cites a judgment dat