JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - This appeal is directed against the order of attachment before judgment passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Sambalpur. 2. Plaintiff filed Money Suit No. 59 of 1977 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,330.40 paise alleging that he had supplied bricks worth that amount to the Defendant, a contractor, engaged in execution of building work and, the amount had not been paid. He, therefore, filed the suit and asked for attachment before judgment on the allegation that the Defendant was about to shift his business to Rourkela beyond the jurisdiction of the Court with a view to avoiding the decree that may be passed and, therefore, the bills of the Defendant which he was attempting to get cleared should be attached in the hands of public authorities. The Defendant denied the allegations and pleaded that no case for attachment under Rule 5 of Order 38 of the CPC had been made out. It was pointed out on his behalf that the remedy of attachment before judgment is a harsh one and unless there was strict compliance with the requirements of the law, ordinarily such relief should not be granted. The learned Trial Judge, however, directed the Defendant to furnish security to the tune of Rs. 16,000/- and until such security was furnished, the bills mentioned in Schedule-A to the petition were directed to be attached. 3. Mr. Mohdpatra for the Defendant-Appellant has maintained that the trial Court had no justification to allow the prayer for attachment in view of the fact that the Defendant was a permanent resident within the jurisdiction of the Court, was an established contractor and there was no acceptable material that he was running away from the jurisdiction of the Court or was attempting to avoid the decree that might be passed in favour of the Plaintiff. Long arguments were advanced on both sides on the question as to whether the Plaintiff on whom heavy burden lay to establish circumstances justifying attachment before judgment had made out a case in support of the petition for attachment. Undoubtedly, this Court has taken the view that the remedy provided under Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code is a harsh one and judicial discretion should not be exercised until a dear case had been made out. See Kailash Chandra Kabara v. Bhagaban Sahay Gupta & Brothers, Firm and Ors. Undoubtedly, this Court has taken the view that the remedy provided under Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code is a harsh one and judicial discretion should not be exercised until a dear case had been made out. See Kailash Chandra Kabara v. Bhagaban Sahay Gupta & Brothers, Firm and Ors. 1972 (1) C.W.R. 497, The Barium Chemicals Ltd. and Another Vs. The Company Law Board and Others Bisakha Rani Ghose Vs. Satish Chandra Roy Singha and Others and Shamsunder Rajkumar Vs. Bharat Oil Mills. Having heard counsel for both sides, I am, however, inclined to require the Defendant to furnish security in any acceptable form to the learned Subordinate Judge to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- pending adjudication of the suit. Such security be furnished early. Bills to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- shall remain- attached until such security is furnished. Defendant is free to withdraw the money on the remaining of the bills. The - suit itself be expeditiously disposed of as it is quite an old one. In normal course, a money suit of 1977 should have been disposed of by now. 4. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. There will be no order for costs.