An attachment before judgment continues even after a decree is passed in the suit, but the plaintiff is not entitled to proceed with an interlocutory application for interim reliefs in the suit once a final decree is passed.

DIPAK KUMAR SEN, J.

( 1 ) ON the 10th Aug. , 1983, Ram Niwas Kumarja Pvt. Ltd. , the plaintiff, instituted this suit against Prem Prakash Arya, the defendant, claiming, inter alia, a decree for Rs. 1,02,077. 50 p. with further interest.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff alleges that it had lent and advanced to the defendant Rs. 50,000/-on the 7th Nov. , 1980 and Rs. 45,000/- on the 27th June 1981. The amounts were repayable on demand with interest payable every month at the rate of 1 % per month, which was enhanced to 14% per month in Nov. , 1982.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff alleges further that it demanded repayment of the said loans with interest which the defendant failed and neglected to pay.

( 4 ) THIS application has been made in this suit by the plaintiff on a notice dated the 11th Aug. , 1983 for the following orders:-- (a) A direction on the defendant to furnish security for Rs. 1,02,077. 50 p. (b) In default, the outstanding, dues payable to the defendant by Jessep and Co. P. Ltd. ; Chandras Chemicals Enterprises Ltd. ; Rehabilitation Industrial Corporation and Calcutta Port Trust be attached before judgment; (c) Injunction restraining the defendant from realising or receiving the said outstanding dues. (d) Appointment of a receiver to collect the said outstanding dues and to keep or hold the money realised in a fixed deposit account. (e) A receiver over the defendant's interest to M/s. Besf Transport Corporation with power to collect all properties and profits belonging or payable to the defendant by the said firm.

( 5 ) THE plaintiff alleges that the defendant b in involved circumstances and is selling or disposing of or transferring his assets and secreting the proceeds thereof with the object of defrauding his creditors, including the plaintiff. It is alleged that the defendant is his business has borrowed over Rs. 3 lakhs from different persons and concerns.

( 6 ) BEST Transport Corporation, where the defendant is a partner having 45% share, it is alleged has also borrowed about Rs. 3 lakhs from various persons and concents associated with the plaintiff. The defendant intends also to wind up the business of the laid firm.

( 7 ) IT is alleged that the object of the defendant is to obstruct or delay the execution of the decree which is likely to be passed in this suit.

( 8 ) AN ad interim order was passed in this application on the 11th August, 1983 restraining the defendant from realising or receiving his outstanding dues from Jessop and Co. P. Ltd. ; the Chandras Chemicals Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. ; the Rehabilitation Indus-trial Corporation and the Calcutta Port Trust. Thereafter a receiver was appointed, who has collected from Jessop and Co. Ltd. a sum of Rs. 97,000/- due to the defendant and is holding the same.

( 9 ) THE defendant has affirmed an affidavit on the 1st Sept. , 1983 which has been filed in opposition to the petition. The defendant has admitted the loans but contends that the plaintiff was not entitled to demand repayment if the stipulated interest at the rate of 1% was paid regularly. It is denied that interest was agreed to be paid at an enhanced rate: The defendant contends that the plaintiff is not entitled to a Receiver in a money suit.

( 10 ) IT is a matter of record that the plain-tiffs had made another application in this suit under Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules for a summary judgment against the defendant. On the 1st Feb. , 1984 a decree for the full amount claimed has been passed against the defendant in the said application during the pendency of the present application. Under the decree the defendant has been allowed to pay the decretal amount in instalments.

( 11 ) IT was submitted by learned Counsel for the defendant at the hearing that after the passing of the decree the plaintiff is not entitled to proceed further in this application and no order should be passed herein.

( 12 ) LEARNED Counsel for the plaintiff contended to the contrary and submitted that an order of attachment bef

Click Here to Read the rest of this document