In cases of recovery where potential irreparable loss is identified, courts may grant interim injunctions to prevent the alienation of properties pending resolution of the dispute.

ORDER

I.A.8649/2021 (by the plaintiff under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 read with Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC)

1. The suit [CS(COMM) 330/2021] has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.2,27,93,523.76/- along with interest. The case, as set up by the plaintiff, is that the parties were having business transactions in plywood, wood, laminates, etc.. The defendant had been purchasing these semi-furnished goods from the plaintiff since 2001. A running account was being maintained and the plaintiff raised invoices from time to time upon the defendant for the goods/materials delivered to the defendant, who however, made only part payments. As a result, a sum of Rs.2,27,93,523.76/- became the outstanding principal amount. It is submitted that the plaintiff made several efforts to recover the said outstanding payment from the defendant, but the defendant was intentionally, deliberately and willfully neglecting to pay the outstanding amount. Thus, the plaintiff was compelled to file the suit.

2. While directing issuance of summons to the defendant, this court vide orders dated 20th July, 2021 had issued interim directions as follows:-

"In the interest of justice, to prevent any irreparable loss to the plaintiff in view of the alleged apprehension expressed by the plaintiff that the defendant intends to frustrate the rights of the plaintiff, till the next date of hearing, the defendant is restrained from alienating the properties mentioned in paragraphs 4 (a), 4(b) and 4(c)."

3. Vide the instant application [I.A.8649/2021], the plaintiff has prayed that since the intention of the defendant was more than apparent that he was not going to discharge his obligations, the properties of the defendant, namely, (a) M/s. Raj Furniture, situated at 16/5, Main Mathura Road, Faridabad, Haryana- 121002, India, (b) Factory, situated at 16/6, Mohan Market, Mohan Babawali Gali, Faridabad, Haryana-121002, India, and (c) House No.1464, Sec-15, Faridabad, Haryana-121007, India, be attached. Further directions are sought to restrain the defendant and his family members, attorneys, etc., from creating any third party interest in these properties till the disposal of the suit.

4. Written statement to the suit and the reply to the instant application have been filed by the defendant. Mr. Kailash Chandra, learned counsel for the defendant, submitted that out of these three properties, the property (a) i.e., M/s. Raj Furniture, situated at 16/5, Main Mathura Road, Faridabad, Haryana- 121002, India, did not belong to the defendant and drew attention of this Court to the tax receipts placed on the record at page 24 of the "Documents" filed on behalf of the defendant, to show that the said property belonged to Kanchan Arora and the address was actually 183A Friends Colony, and that the property i.e., (a) M/s. Raj Furniture, situated at 16/5, Main Mathura Road, Faridabad, Haryana- 121002, India, was inappropriately described. It was further submitted that the property (b) i.e., Factory, situated at 16/6, Mohan Market, Mohan Babawali Gali, Faridabad, Haryana- 121002, no doubt belonged to the defendant, but as regards property (c) i.e., House No. 1464, Sec-15, Faridabad, Haryana- 121007, the defendant had only 50% share therein.

5. Learned counsel for the defendant further submitted that the properties (b) and (c) i.e., the Factory and the House, were mortgaged with Punjab National Bank (earlier known as Oriental Bank of Commerce) at Neelam Chowk, N.I.T, Faridabad (Haryana) as a collateral security, and that there was no scope for the defendant to create any third party interest in these properties. Thus, learned counsel submitted that the interim directions restraining the defendant from creating any third party interest in these properties was liable to be vacated.

6. Learned counsel for the defendant also submitted that the suit of the plaintiff was time barred as the ledger produced by the plaintiff and placed at page 5 of th