JUDGMENT

The original petition has been filed challenging Ext.P9 order, whereby the attachment over property ordered had been lifted. At the time of admission, this Court had on 22.06.2023, directed the respondents to show cause why security shall not be furnished for the decree amount that may be passed and a conditional order of the attachment was passed till the next posting date. The said order is being extended from time to time. The additional 3^rd respondent entered appearance and admitted willingness to furnish security. As a matter of fact amounts are also deposited in the form of fixed deposits. It is submitted that the term of the fixed deposit has expired. The counsel for the additional 3^rd respondent submits that the additional 3^rd respondent is willing to extend the period of the term deposit, which has been furnished as security. Since the order was conditional, necessarily once sufficient security is furnished the attachment has to go. All that is necessary is to ensure that the security remains till the final disposal of the proceedings before the court. The right of the additional 3^rd respondent is contested. So also, the 3^rd respondent has a case that the proceed