The power of attachment before judgment is an extraordinary power and should be granted with care and caution. The burden is entirely on the plaintiff to show the defendant's intention to dispose of the property to obstruct or delay the execution of the decree.

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 326 of 1997 are the petitioners in C.R.P. No. 2113 of 1997 and appellants in C.M.A .No. 225 of 1997. They are the petitioners in LA. Nos. 3101 and 3102 of 1997. C.R.P. No. 2113 of 1997 is filed against the order in 1. A. No. 3102 of 1997, and C.M.A. No. 225 of 1997 is filed against the order in I.A. No. 3101 of 1997. Defendant is the appellant in C.M. A. No. 236 of 1997, which is filed against the order in I.A. No. 3101 of 1997.

2. Suit was instituted for realisation of Rs. 5,39,590/- and also for other consequential reliefs. An agreement was entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant for supply of kitchen articles for their new hotel which is being set up at Ernakulam. As per the agreement, defendant received a sum of Rs. 3,25,000/- for supply of various articles. Defendant did not supply the articles according to specification, and articles supplied were also defective. Plaintiffs rejected most of the items except four items. Defendant was requested to take back the articles and to pay back the amount received from the plaintiffs. In the suit plaintiffs filed LA. No. 3102 of 1997 for a direction to the defendant to furnish security for the amount of Rs. 7 lakhs and also for immediate attachment of items shown in the attachment schedule.

3. Plaintiffs also filed LA. No. 3101 of 1997 under O. XXXIX Rr! 1 and 2 CPC for an injunction restraining the defendant from transferring, alienating, removing or otherwise dealing with the articles, equipments, etc in the business premises of the respondent-concern at Bangalore.

4. Defendants filed counter affidavits in both the petitions. Defendant admitted the receipt of Rs. 3,25,000/-. According to him, when second plaintiff visited the factory at Bangalore on 22.2.1996, articles worth Rs. 2,15,834/- were dispatched to the plaintiffs, through M/s. Classic Carriers on 25.2.1996, and were delivered at the premises of the plaintiffs. As per the terms of the agreement, 40% of the value of the goods was to be paid by the plaintiffs before despatch. In order to avoid payment, plaintiffs issued a letter dated 9.3.1996 to the defendant stating that some of the articles supplied were defective and did not conform to the specifications as per the contract. According to him, articles supplied were received by the plaintiffs, and articles worth Rs. 47,000/- are lying in the business premises of the defendant. All the articles supplied by the defendant are strictly in accordance with the specification stated in the question.

5. After considering various aspects of the matter, trial court granted an order of injunction with regard to items 1 to 8 mentioned in the attachment schedule. However, with regard to items 11 to 14, the trial court permitted to the defendant to utilise the same for manufacturing goods only after furnishing security of Rs.1 lakh. It was ordered that till security is furnished, defendant would be restrained from utilising those items in the schedule. On the basis of the above direction, court below dismissed I.A. No. 3102 of 1997 and partly allowed I.A. No. 3101 of 1997. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs and defendant have come up before this Court.

6. When the matter came up for hearing, it was submitted by counsel for the defendants that some of the items manufactured for the plaintiffs are already lying in the business premises of the defendant, and that the articles supplied by him would cover the entire amount advanced by the plaintiffs. According to the defendant since those goods are customer made articles, defendant could not be in a position to dispose of the same. It is his case that huge loss has occasioned to him on this aspect. Counsel for the plaintiffs on the other hand submitted that plaintiffs were unaware of those facts and exercised their willingness to take delivery of those articles, if they are made on the basis of specification. Plaintiffs volunteered to send their representative to inspect the