A Court has no jurisdiction to direct attachment of property situate beyond its territorial jurisdiction.

( 1 ) THIS Rule is at the instance of the defendant No. 1 and it is directed against Order No. 2 dated Feb. 16, 1977 of the Subordinate Judge, 4th Court, Alipore. The suit out of which this Rule arises has been instituted by the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 against the petitioner and others for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 38,951. 10. The opposite party No. 1 filed an application under Order 38, Rule 5 of the Civil P. C. for attachment before judgment, inter alia, alleging therein that the defendants were avoiding payment of the plaintiff's dues and with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of the decree that would be passed in the suit against the defendants, they were about to dispose of their assets and had removed and/or had been removing their property from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. Further, it was alleged that the defendants were trying to receive payment of the money from the Additional Chief Engineer, Bandel Thermal Power Station payable to the firm 'sarkar and Sarkar' of which the petitioner is the sole owner, in respect of the construction of the Training Institute-cum-Trainees Hostel at the said Power Station. By the impugned order, the learned Subordinate Judge directed issue of notices upon the defendants and also passed a conditional order of attachment of the sum of Rupees 41,000 lying in the hands of the Additional Chief Engineer of the Bandel Thermal Power Station which is admittedly outside the jurisdiction of the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge,

( 2 ) THE principal question that is involved in this Rule is whether an attachment before judgment can be made of a property situate outside the jurisdiction of the Court directing such attachment. Order 38, Rule 5 of the Civil P. C. , 1908 is as follows:"5 (1) Where, at any stage of a suit, the Court is satisfied, by affidavit or otherwise, that the defendant, with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against him-- (a) is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property, 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 palace 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 otherwise directs, specify the property required to be attached and the estimated value thereof. (3) The Court may also in the order direct the conditional attachment of the whole or any portion of the property so specified. "it is contended by Mr. Mukul Prakash Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that a Court has no jurisdiction to direct attachment of property situate beyond its territorial jurisdicion. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on two decisions of this Court by the same Bench, namely, Begg. Dunlop and Co. v. Jagannath (1912) 16 Cal WN 402 and Surendra Nath Goswami v. Bansi Badan Goswami, 22 Cal WN 160: (AIR 1918 Cal 911 ). In the first mentioned case, the question that came up for consideration before the Bench was whether it was competent for a Court, in execution of a decree for money, to attach at the instance of the decree-holder a debt payable to the judgment-debtor by a non-resident outside the jurisdiction. In that case, the learned Subordinate Judge held that, as in the case of an attachment before judgment, the writ could be issued in respect of properties outside jurisdiction, the same doctrine ought to be applied to cases of attachment in execution proceedings. Sir Ashutosh Mookerjee who delivered the judgment of the Bench, though observed that there was no analogy between the two classes