Honble SHARMA, J.–These four civil miscellaneous appeals have been filed by the plaintiffs M/s. Cosmopolitan Trading Corporation and Harish Chand Bader impugning the orders dated February 3, 2001 of the learned District Judge Jaipur City whereby the applications seeking temporary injunction and attachment before judgment of the property of the defendant- respondents were dismissed.

(2). The parties shall be hereinafter referred in the same manner as they were arrayed in the plaints.

(3). The plaintiff M/s. Cosmopolitan Trading Corporation instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 17.40 lacs against the defendants 1 to 5. Alongwith the suit applications bearing No. 135/2000 under Order 38 Rule 5 and No. 137/200 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC were filed. Similarly the plaintiff Harish Chand Bader instituted another suit for recovery of Rs. 19.80 lacs against the defendants 1 to 5 with two applications under Order 38 Rule 5 and Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC bearing Nos. 134/2000 and 136/2000. The plaintiffs averred in the applications that the defendants 1 to 5 are bent upon to dispose of their properties in order to make impossible of execution of the decree to be passed in the suits. In the business establishment of the defendants loss of more than 100 crores has been incurred. The defendants are indulged in siphoning money out of the company and went to leave the country. By filing additional affidavit the plaintiffs pleaded that the defendants entered into an agreement to sale the property for a consideration of Rs. 2 crores and received Rs. 20 lacs as advance payment. They have borrowed more than Rs. 1 crore from Bank of Rajasthan and it has been agreed between them that the amount shall be paid to the bank and the property which is equitably mortgaged with the Bank, shall be released. The plaintiffs asserted by filing copy of show cause notice served by the custom department on the defendants that they diverted high money to Foreign Countries through fictitious transactions. It was therefore prayed that the defendants 1 to 5 be restrained from alienating the property and the six defendant Bank of Rajasthan be restrained from releasing title deeds of the mortgaged property. A prayer was also made to issue order of attachment before judgment of the property of defendants 1 to 5.

(4). In support of reply filed by the defendants 1 to 5, second defendant Prakash Chand filed affidavit. Reply was not signed by third defendant Arun Kumar. The defendants denied this fact that they intend to run out of the country. The fact of entering into agreement to sale of the property in consideration of Rs. 2 crores and receiving advance payment of Rs. 20 lacs was however not denied. Sixth defendant Bank of Rajasthan also filed reply and admitted that the property was mortgaged with the Bank and about Rs. 1 crore were due against the defendants 1 to 5.

(5). Learned District Judge by two different orders dated February 3, 2001 dismissed the applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and Order 38 Rule 5 CPC of the plaintiffs M/s. Cosmopolitan Trading Corporation and Harish Chand Bader as indicated hereinabove.

(6). I deem it appropriate at this juncture to consider the relevant statutory provisions. Rule 5 of Order 38 CPC reads as under-

``R.5 Where defendant may be called upon to furnish security for production of property.

(1) Where, at any stage of a suit, the Court is satisfied, by affidavit or otherwise, that the defendant, with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any 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,

the Court may direct the defendant, within a time to be fixed by it, either to furnish security, in such sum as may be specified in the order, to produce and place at the disposal of the Court, when required, the said property or the value of the same, or such p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document