( 1 ) THE appellant plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Nadiad to recover an amount of Rs. 5 6 348 rs. from Messs Interstate Trading Corporation a partnership firm and its three partners who are the respondents herein. In the said suit the appellant plaintiff took out a Notice of Motion for attachment before judgment on three grounds (1) that the defendants respondents were about to dispose of their property and had in fact started selling off the stock-in-trade (2) the defendants intended to dispose of their Ambassador and Fiat cars and had in fact negotiated for the sale of those cars with two different parties and (3) that the defendants were about to abscond to Pakistan. The properties in respect of which attachment was sought were set out in detail in the Schedule annexed to the Notice of Motion. The learned trial Judge dismissed the application for attachment before judgment on 5/06/1979 and it is against that order of dismissal that the original plaintiff has preferred this appeal.

( 2 ) UNDER Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Court is invested with power to order attachment before Judgment if the defendant fails to furnish security at any stage of the suit. before the Court exercises the power under the said rule it must be satisfied that the defendant with potent to obstruct or delay the execution of the 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. If the aforesaid two conditions are satisfied by affidavit or otherwise the Court may direct the defendant to furnish security in such sum as it may specify in its order to produce and place at the disposal of the Court when required the said property or the value thereof on such portion thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the decree. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of Order 38 empowers the Court to direct the conditional attachment of the whole or any portion of the property so specified in the application at the time of the passing of the said order. In the instant case attachment before judgment was sought on three grounds set out earlier. Out of these three grounds the ground that the defendants are likely to run away to Pakistan cannot be invoked for the purpose of attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule of the Code. That would be a valid ground to invoke the Courts jurisdiction under Order 38 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the instant case there is no allegation that the defendants are about to remove the whole or any part of their property from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court for the obvious reason that the properties set out in the Schedule Opiated to the application are admittedly outside the jurisdiction of the Nadiad Court. The only ground which can therefore survive is that the diffident are about to dispose of the whole or any part of their property with a view to obstructing or delaying the execution of the decree that may be passed against them in the suit. in support of the said ground the alter nations is that. the defendants have disposed of some part of the stock-in-trade to (1) Messrs L. N. Nooruddin and Sons of Trichinopally (Tamilnadu and (2) Messrs S. Kadarkhan and Sons Salem (Tamilnadu ). Now the defendants are dealers in tobacco. They had purchased tobacco from the appellant firm on credit and the suit also is to recover the price of goes sold and delivered to the defendants. It is thus obvious that the defendants are trading in tobacco and if in the usual course of business they sold a part of their stock-in-trade to the aforesaid two firms carrying on business in Tamilnadu it cannot be said that they disposed of the goods with a view to obstructing or delaying the execution of the decree that may be passed against them in the suit instituted by the appellant. The le