M. Chockalingam, J.

This judgment shall govern these two appeals, which have arisen from the common order of the learned Single Judge of this Court made in three applications, namely O.A.No.345 of 2003 and Application Nos.1762 and 2619 of 2003.

2. The affidavit filed in support of all the applications filed by the parties and the common order under challenge are perused. The Court heard the learned counsel on either side.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of sum of Rs.19,70,603.00 in C.S.No.287 of 2003, alleging that the plaintiff sold imported wood to the first defendant, a partnership firm; that the defendants 2 to 7 were the partners; that in that transaction, the defendants made payment to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-, while the balance was Rs.14,34,843/- and thus, along with accrued interest, at the time of filing of the suit, the balance was Rs.19,70,603/-; that at the time of initiation of the said suit, three applications were filed, one in O.A.No.345 of 2003, seeking interim injunction, restraining the respondents from alienating or encumbering the petition schedule mentioned property, while the other application in A.No.1762 of 2003 was filed seeking direction to the respondents to furnish security to the suit claim, failing which to order attachment of immovable property found in the schedule. On appearance, the respondents, after filing counter in those two applications, has filed A.No.2619 of 2003 to vacate the interim order of injunction originally granted by the court on 11.04.2003.

4. The main contention put forth by the plaintiff before the learned Single Judge and equally here also is that the schedule mentioned properties were likely to be alienated and if the defendants/respondents are permitted to do so, even if the decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff, they could not get the fruits of it and they would be defeated and hence there arose a necessity to ask not only interim injunction, restraining the respondents from alienating or encumbering the property, but also for a direction to the respondents to furnish security and in default, to pass an order of attachment.

5. Both the applications were resisted by stating that it is true, there was transaction between the parties, but the entire payment has been actually made and the balance was Rs.626/- only and that the claim that was made was false.

6. After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that even the written statement has not been filed and only after doing so, the defence to be put forth by the defendants could be assessed and at this juncture, there was no prima facie case noticed by the Court for granting the relief of either interim injunction or ordering attachment and that the allegations noticed are vague and that would not be sufficient to invoke Order 38 Rule 5 of C.P.C. for granting an order of attachment and with that observations, both the applications were dismissed. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff has brought forth these appeals before this Court.

7. Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel would submit that the plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of sum of Rs.19,70,603.00, alleging that it was the balance due from the defendants by way of supply of wood to the first defendant, for which the defendants 2 to 7 were the partners; that while admitting the transactions, the defendants have come forward to state that the entire amount has been paid and the balance was Rs.626/-only; that the learned Single Judge was not prepared to accept the contentions put forth and has dismissed the applications; that after passing an order of ad interim injunction on 14. 2003, the respondents/defendants have sold 14 cents, which compelled the plaintiff to file a contempt application. When that application was pending, an undertaking was given by the defendants, who are the respondents herein, not to alienate the rest of the properties. The said undertaking was reco