( 1 ) THIS is defendants first appeal against the order dated 13th August 1985 passed by the Civil Judge (II) Gorakhpur directing the appellant to furnish security in the sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- and to attach his properties before judgment in the event of his failure to furnish security within the time allowed.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff-respondents instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 7,00,000 against the appellant. They also made an application under O. 38, R. 5 of the Civil P. C. for attaching certain properties of the appellant before judgment on the ground that he was about to dispose of his properties with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against him. This application was contested by the appellant, but was allowed by the order appealed against.

( 3 ) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the order passed by the trial Court is based on no evidence inasmuch as the affidavit filed in support of the application for attachment before judgment containing assertion that the appellant was about to dispose of his properties with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of the decree, was not properly sworn and was not at all an affidavit in the eye of law.

( 4 ) THE respondents have put in appearance. The learned counsel for the parties are agreed that this appeal may be finally decided at this very stage. We have accordingly heard learned counsel for the parties on the merits of the appeal. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that an affidavit was filed in support of the application for attachment before judgment in which the crucial averment referred to above that the appellant was about to dispose of his properties in order to delay and obstruct the execution of the decree was sworn on personal knowledge by Sri Ramesh Chandra Bhargava. Thereupon an application was made on behalf of the appellant for permitting Sri Ramesh Chandra Bhargava to be cross examined inasmuch as according to the appellant, the affidavit filed by him was quite vague and contained wrong allegations. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents wanted an opportunity for filing an additional affidavit giving detailed facts in this behalf. The permission prayed for was granted and an additional affidavit was filed, a copy whereof has been attached as Annexure 7 to the affidavit filed in this Court in support of the application for interim relief in this appeal. A perusal of that affidavit indicates that the averment made in the earlier affidavit that the appellant was after disposing of his immovable properties intending to leave India and that he had with that end in view finally negotiated the transfer of those properties and was about to dispose of the same at the earliest, have been sworn by Sri Ramesh Chandra Bhargava on information received. The source of information however was not disclosed on the ground that the said information had been given by a person who did not wish to disclose his identity. In view of the forgoing facts it is apparent that the only affidavit in support of the application for attachment before judgment filed by Sri Ramesh Chandra Bhargava was the additional affidavit wherein the fact that the appellant was about to dispose of his properties with intent to delay or obstruct the execution of the decree had been sworn on information without disclosing the source of information. The application on which the order appealed against was passed was apparently an interlocutory application and in view of the provision contained in this behalf under O. 19, R. 3 such an affidavit could be sworn even on the basis of belief, provided that the ground thereof had been stated. This Court has made amendment in O. 19 whereby after R. 3, Rr. 4 to 15 have been added. R. 9 so added by this Court reads as under :"except in interlocutory proceedings, affidavits shall strictly be confined t