SANJIB BANERJEE, J.

1. It was probably worth a try, but the appellant’s endeavour to stretch the bizarre to absurd cannot be appreciated. The appeal is directed against a rather lengthy judgment of September 5, 2017 passed on an interlocutory petition in a money claim. An initial order of May 17, 2017 was vacated by the order impugned and a different form of security afforded to the appellant. The appellant completely disowns such order and says that it did not seek an order of the kind that it has obtained.

2. The facts as innocently presented in course of the opening of this appeal justified a degree of indignation at the appellant’s case not being accepted by the interlocutory court. But as the more complex facts pertaining to the matter unfolded, even before the respondents had a say in the matter, it was evident that the action was instituted with sinister motive and oblique purpose.

3. The simple case of the plaintiff-appellant that was initially presented was that the appellant had invested a sum of Rs.21 crore in a real estate project undertaken by the third defendant (also the third respondent here) through the instrumentalities of the first and second defendant com