The court must insist upon strict proof of the allegations that the defendant is about to dispose of or remove the property, or, to give the source of his information and belief in the matter.

JUDGMENT:- The appellant challenges the order of the court below directing him to deposit into court "cash security" of half of the suit claim without prejudice to his contentions. This order purports to have been passed under the provisions of Order 38, Rule 5, C.P.C. The propriety of this order is called in question now before me.

2. The appellant is the fourth defendant in the suit, O.S. No. 3618 of 1962, on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras. The suit has been instituted by a certain Bangaru Reddiar, the respondent herein, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,600 alleged to be due under a promissory note executed by a firm called Bombay Films. The firm is the first defendant in the suit. Defendants 2, 3 and 4 are alleged to be the partners of this firm. It is common ground that the fourth defendant is not the actual executant of the promissory note, but, he has been impleaded

on the footing that he is a partner liable to answer the suit claim said to have been incurred for and on behalf of the first defendant firm.

3. The appellant resists the suit mainly on the ground that he was not a partner on the date 15-12-1959, when this debt was incurred. According to him, he became a partner of the firm only on 21-6-1960. Whether the contention of the fourth defendant-appellant is well founded or not it is clear that he does not admit liability of the suit claim and that there is no prima facie case against him as admittedly he did not join as an executant in the promissory note, The plaintiff-respondent filed an application for attachment before judgment and prayed that the house and ground belonging to the fourth defendant, "Shanti Vilas", Race Course, Coimbatore, may be attached. In support of this application, the plaintiff swore to an affidavit stating that the fourth defendant is indebted to several creditors, that he is not possessed of any immoveable property in the city of Madras and that he is attempting to alienate his property at Coimbatore in order to screen it beyond the reach of creditors and with a view to defeat and delay the rights of the plaintiff and other creditors. The fourth defendant objected to the attachment prayed for and filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations made by the plaintiff. He characterised the application as being "reckless and malicious". He swore that he was not indebted and that he was not attempting to alienate his house in Coimbatore. He added that besides the house at Coimbatore he also owns several building sites in that place, that he has houses and lands in several villages in Coimbatore Dt., that his properties are not encumbered, that he owns shares in textile mills of the value of Rs. 30,000, that he is the managing agent of Gnanambika Mills, Coimbatore, and that his monthly business income is in the neighbourhood of Rs. 5,000.

4. The learned City Civil Judge, after summarising the allegations contained in the respective affidavits of the parties, reached the strange conclusion that the fourth defendant should deposit half the suit amount. There is no finding by the learned Judge that the appellant is intending to alienate his properties with a view to defeat or delay creditors and that unless he is prevented from alienating the properties, the plaintiff will be prejudiced in realising the decree which he may ultimately obtain in the suit. The learned Judge observes that the fourth defendant is not living within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, that he is not possessed of any property within the said jurisdiction and that the plaintiff has got "apprehensions" in his mind. I wish to set out the conclusion reached by the court below in the words of the learned Judge himself only to point out that it is in utter disregard of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Judge states -

"In view of the allegations made in the counter affidavit and taking into consideration the allegations that the fourth defendant is a well-to-do person and also the app