1984 Supreme(MP) 638

Faizao Uddin, J.
Ramnath v. Jaiom Singh.
M. A. No. 45 of 1979 (J); Decided on 28-9-1984.

Headnote:Civil P. C., 1908-O. 38, R. 5 and O. 39 Rr. 1 and 2-appllcations under order to furnish security and disclose immovable property to be charged plaintiff interest safeguarded.

       

        The plaintiff instituted a money suit against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 22504/- out of which Rs. 19000/.is the principal amount and the rest is the interest claimed over the said amount. The plaintiffs case is that he bad given a sum of Rs. 19000/- to the defendant to deposit in the bank in the plaintiffs account. But the defendant deposited the same in his own account. On plaintiffs complaint a criminal case has also been registered against the defendant and challan has been put up in the competent Court.

       

        The plaintiff made an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking injunction against the defendant to restrain him from withdrawing the amount from the bank. Another application under Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code was also made for attachment of the said amount before judgment. Learned trial judge rejected both the applications by impugned order but directed the defendant to furnish security in the sum of Rs. 25000/- and also to disclose the immovable property on which there will be charge of the said amount in the event the surety amount Was not produced. This appeal has been directed against the said order.

       

        Held: The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the trial judge had found a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and, therefore it ought to have granted injunction or in any case passed an order of attachment before judgment. In view of the fact that the plaintiffs interest has been safeguarded by the trial Court by passing an order to furnish security in the sum of Rs. 25000/- and to describe the property over which there with be a charge to the same extent, no injustice has been done to the appellant in rejecting both the applications. I do not find any good reasons to interfere which the impugned order. Appeal dismissed.