M. Chockalingam, J.

These two intra-court appeals challenge a common order of the learned Single Judge of this Court made in two applications in Application Nos.5061 and 5657 of 2008 whereby the appellants herein asked for a direction to the respondents therein to furnish security for the suit claim and in default attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code.

2. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the appellants.

3. No case is made out, in the considered opinion of the Court, for granting the relief, and the order by the learned Single Judge does not require disturbance in the hands of this Court. This Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case where the appeals could be admitted for the following reasons.

4. The case of the appellants is as follows:

The suits were filed seeking recovery of money against the partnership firm and also the partners namely the defendants 2 to 4. Even as per the averments, the transaction commenced in the year 2002 and ended in 2007, and the suits were filed in the year 2008. Further the suit claims were made since defaults were committed in payment of certain amounts towards supply of goods. Thus, the transactions were continuing, and the defendants are liable to pay the suit amounts. The defendants 1, 3 and 4 did not have any properties, and the second defendant had the only property mentioned in the affidavit and also the application, and he was likely to convey the property in order to defeat the suit claim. Under the circumstances, it became necessary to file the applications for attachment before judgment.

5. The opposite party was given an opportunity for filing counter.

6. The learned Single Judge after scrutiny of the materials available and hearing the submissions made, took the view that it is not a fit case where attachment before judgment could be made and accordingly dismissed the applications. Hence these appeals at the instance of the appellant/plaintiff.

7. Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned Counsel Mr. Prakash Goklaney would submit that it is true that the transaction of supply of goods commenced in the year 2002 and they were continuing till 2007; that there was a default; that there was a notice issued; that despite the service of notice, the defendants did not give any reply; that there was a specific claim made; that in the entire counter, the contesting respondent did not deny the allegations made; that he has spoken denying the liability; that the specific averment that he is about to sell the property was not denied; that it is not proper to state that it is barred by limitation since it is a continuing transaction; that the learned Single Judge has not adverted his attention to either the factual or the legal position; that under the circumstances, it is a fit case where the relief should have been granted, and it is a fit case for admission.

8. The Court after hearing the learned Counsel and looking into the materials and in particular, the order under challenge, is of the considered opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge does not require any interference.

9. It is not that whenever any claim for recovery of money is made before a Court of civil law, every application filed for attachment before judgment should be ordered. It is well settled proposition of law that in a given case, asking for a direction to the defendants to furnish security and in default an order of attachment is an extraordinary remedy. It is also settled proposition of law that in a given case if the allegations are bald, the Court has no option than to deny the relief. What is all mentioned in paragraph 11 of the affidavits in support of the applications is as follows:

"11. I reliably understand that the 2nd respondent herein is making hectic efforts to dispose of the land to keep it out of the reach of the creditors and particularly me. I have come to understand that the real estate agents in the area h