JUDGMENT :

Krishna Rao, J.

1. The plaintiff has filed the instant application praying for appointment of Special Officer/Receiver for taking possession of books of account and to finds the details of various transactions with various debtors and other parties and to collect the trade receivable by the defendant from the debtors of the defendant.

2. The plaintiff had filed the suit against the defendant being C.S. No. 156 of 2020 praying for a decree for a sum of Rs. 5,41,88,527/- along with interest. The plaintiff previously filed an application being G.A No. 1 of 2020 praying for an order of injunction restraining the defendant from withdrawing any amount from the bank mentioned in prayer (a) of the said application. In the said application, this Court has passed an order restraining the defendant from withdrawing any sum from S.B. A/c No. 910010017274507 maintained with the Axis Bank Limited, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata and S.B A/c No. 3102135000011008 with Karur Vysya Bank, Shakespeare Sarani Branch, Kolkata without keeping aside a sum of Rs. 5 crore towards the claim of the plaintiff.

3. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the defendant in connection with G.A No. 1 of 2021, the defendant stated that the defendant did not have any control over the S.B. A/c No. 910010017274507 maintained with the Axis Bank Limited as the said account was opened by the finance broker Shri Shanti Kumar Surana in the name of the defendant and the defendant has handed over blank signed cheques to Shanti Kumar Surana for his use. The plaintiff confronted the above statement to Shri Shanti Kumar Surana, he has denied the allegation made by the defendant. Shanti Kumar Surana vide his letter dated August 2, 2021 clarified that the allegation made by the defendant in the affidavit-in-opposition are absolutely false and the defendant had also filed a suit being C.S. No. 89 of 2021 before this Court against one Gyan Nidhi Trust and others including Shanti Kumar Surana.

4. Mr. Rupak Ghosh, Learned Counsel representing the plaintiff submits that from the plaint filed by the defendant being CS No. 89 of 2021 reveals that the defendant had given financial accommodation of Rs. 6,29,35,750/- to Gyan Nidhi Trust. He further submits that the amount of Rs. 6,29,35,750/- was transferred by the defendant from his Axis Bank account.

5. Mr. Ghosh submits that from the plaint filed by the defendant in C.S No. 89 of 2021, it also reveals that the defendant is also in the business of lending money and thus the plaintiff believes that the defendant has lot of trade receivables in the market including a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs receivable from Vikash Baid as per the order dated 13th April, 2021 passed in C.S No. 77 of 2021. He further submits that an amount of Rs. 6,51,50,000/- receivable from Sudha Kankaria against which a suit being C.S No. 142 of 2021 is pending against the defendant.

6. Mr. Ghosh submits that the plaintiff apprehend that the defendant will clandestinely dispose of all the assets and properties with the intent to obstruct or delay the execution of the decree which is likely to be passed in favour of the plaintiff in the suit.

7. Mr. Ghosh relied upon the judgment reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418 (Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and Others) and submits that in a money suit, the Court must invariably resort to Order 21, Rule 11, ensuring immediate excuse and of decree for payment of money on oral application and in a suit for payment of money, before settlement of issue the defendant may be required to disclose his assets on oath, to the extent that he is being made liable in a suit.

8. Per contra, Mr. Rohit Banerjee, representing the defendant submits that the application filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable under law as the same is misconceived and barred by res-judicata. He submits that previously the plaintiff has filed an application for grant of injunction against the defendant and this Court had already passed an interim order in favour of