The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the relationship between the parties, the misuse of court process, and the maintainability of interim applications.

1. The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,09,95,994/-(Rupees one crore, nine lakh ninety five thousand nine hundred and ninety four only) with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till realistion.

2. The plaintiff is a trader, trading in the name and style of "Sri Venkateshwara Enterprises". The defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff in the month of August, 2011, claiming that he has been given contract by the Bank of America i.e. B.A. Continum Private Limited for the electrical works to be executed at 7th floor, Acendas I.T. Park, Phase III, Taramani.3. M/s.B.A.Continum Private Limited is the subsidiary of Bank of America. The plaintiff started supplying electrical wires and accessories as per various purchase orders specifically placed on the plaintiff by the defendant No.1 from 18.8.2011 till 10.12.2011 worth Rs.1,28,15,732/- (Rupees one crore twenty eight lakhs fifteen thousand seven hundred and thirty two only) out of which the defendant No.1 paid a sum of Rs.26,00,000/-(Rupees twenty six lakhs only) thus, leaving balance of Rs.1,02,15,732/-(Rupees one crores two lakhs fifteen thousand seven hundred and thirty two only). The defendant No.1 also borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only) from the applicant for clearing payment of one M/s.Elins Switch Boards Pvt. Ltd.

4. It is a case of the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 admitted the correctness of the account and affixed his signature admitting the accounts to be correct.

5. It is also the case of the plaintiff that on 11.01.2012, the defendant No.1 was asked to clear outstanding payment with copy to the defendant No.2 being the Project Head of the site. The first defendant wrote a letter to M/s.B.A.Continum Private Limited instructing the said Company to forward all payments covered by his final bill, to the plaintiff and assured that he will not dispute or claim or raise any issues, if such payment or money transfer is transferred in favour of the plaintiff.

6. It is submitted that the defendant No.2 refused to receive the letter, which resulted in issuance of legal notice. It is submitted that the defendant No.1 promised orally and admitted the entire liability as per the statement of accounts dated 19.12.2011 and has also issued a letter to M/s.B.A.Continum Private Limited to release all further payments to the plaintiff. But till date, the plaintiff has not received any amount. The plaintiff has also furnished the details of outstanding due of the defendants in the suit. The plaintiff has restricted his claim of interest to 12% p.a.

7. It is also pleaded that the defendants 1 and 2 are colluding and conniving to prolong the payment due to the plaintiff and furthermore, the first defendant is interested to part with the project/contract, without clearing the plaintiff's dues, at the instance of the defendant No.2. The defendant No.2 is not complied with the letters of the defendant No.1.

8. With the suit, the plaintiff has filed the following applications.

A.No.653 of 2012:

This application has been filed by the plaintiff/applicant for issuance of Pro-order prohibiting the Garnishee from releasing payment of any nature, due to the respondent No.1 to the extent of suit claim.

9. The case of the plaintiff/applicant is that the defendant No.1 and 2 are colluding and conniving each other, to delay the payment due to the plaintiff/applicant and the defendant No.1 is interested to part with the Project site, without clearing dues of the plaintiff.

10. It is further submitted that the defendant No.1 and 2 are hand in glove with each other to deny payment to the plaintiff for the materials supplied worth more than crore of rupees.

11. It is submitted that if the respondent/Garnishee is not prohibited from making payment to the first respondent, the plaintiff will not be in a position to recover the dues from the first respondent, as the defendant will take away the money payable to him by the second