Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : The applicant/plaintiff has filed the Applications Nos. 660 to 662 of 1991 under Order XIV, Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code for the relief of an interim injunction restraining the Garnishee Bank viz., the second respondent from allowing the first respondent to withdraw the amounts or deposit the amounts in S. B. Account No. 19466 at the second respondent bank in the name of the first respondent, pending disposal of the suit; for attaching the property of the first respondent, before judgement, more fully described in the Judge's summons in O.A. Nos. 661 of 1991 and restraining the first respondent from withdrawing any amounts now in the S.B. Account of the first respondent, bearing No. 19447 (HUF) in the hands of the Garnishee, the second respondent herein by means of temporary in junction, pending disposal of the suit. 2. The short facts which are necessary for the appreciation of the case in hand as culled out from the identical affidavit filed in support of all the affidavits are extracted as follows :- The applicant is the plaintiff and he has filed the suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1, 77, 033.35 with interest at 24% per annum on Rs. 80, 000/- from the date of plaint till the date of realization. The defendants 2 and 3 in the suit being the partners of M/s. Sai Prabha Productions obtained a loan of Rs. 80, 000/- from the plaintiff; applicant on the guarantee given by the 4th defendant who is the first respondent in the above applications and the said amount has been handed over through the first respondent who also stood as the guarantor for the above payment. As the said amounts were paid through cheques to the first respondent herein who in turn obtained promissory notes from the defendants 1 to 3 undertaking to pay the amounts to the applicant/plaintiff as and when demanded by him, followed by the defendants failure to pay the principal or interest except a sum of Rs. As the said amounts were paid through cheques to the first respondent herein who in turn obtained promissory notes from the defendants 1 to 3 undertaking to pay the amounts to the applicant/plaintiff as and when demanded by him, followed by the defendants failure to pay the principal or interest except a sum of Rs. 4, 800/- and that in spite of the repeated demands and final notice dated 5-6-1991 sent to the 4th defendant, viz., the first respondent, he has come forward with an undertaking that he would make the entire payment of principal and interest on or before 30-7-1989 and that as the said amount was not paid by the defendants, after issuing notice on 16th January, 1991 the present suit has been filed for the recovery of the amount, reflected in the suit. Thus basing on the guarantee given by the first respondent, the suit amount was advanced to the defendants, but all the defendants failed to discharge the same. 3. It was contended by the applicant/plaintiff that all the defendants including the first respondent were trying to move out of the jurisdiction of this Court with a view to evade the suit liability and since they are involved in the film production line and once the production is over, it will be highly impossible to secure any amount from them and that as such, the first respondent who utilised the entire funds, undertook to pay the suit claim on or before 30-7-1989 and that since no payment was made by the first respondent who is doing business in finance, may move out of the jurisdiction of this Court, in order to evade the liability of the suit, the above applications were initiated by the applicants for the reliefs asked for in the same. In formulating the said averments, the applicant had admitted that he has received a sum of Rs. 4, 800/- from the defendants and that except the said payment, no other amount was paid by any of the respondents or the defendants in this case. Therefore, the reliefs made in all the three applications were being asked for by the applicants. 4. 4, 800/- from the defendants and that except the said payment, no other amount was paid by any of the respondents or the defendants in this case. Therefore, the reliefs made in all the three applications were being asked for by the applicants. 4. On moving the above applications urgently before this Court and on finding a prima facie case in favour of the applicants, this Court has granted the interim prohibitory order against the Garnishee/Second respondent on 23-8-1991 and ordered the notice to the respondents, returnable in two weeks. 5. The first respondent has filed a common counter-affidavit in all the abovesaid three applications and in which he contends inter alia that there is no liability to pay the suit claim to any extent by him and that in short, this respondent denies each and everyone of the averments and the claim made in the suit as well as the affidavit filed in support of the applications and that the defence of the first respondent is one of total denial. He denies the averment of receiving a sum of Rs. 80, 000/- by M/s. Sai Prabha Productions and the alleged guarantee given by this respondent and the alleged payment made by the applicant/plaintiff to either of the defendants. He states that he never stood as a guarantor for the payment of the suit claim to the plaintiff at any point of time. He denies further the averments that there was a joint meeting held on 5-6-1989 and the alleged undertaking given on 12-6-1989 by this respondent to pay the suit liability on or before 30-7-1989. According to him, the notice dated 16-1-1991 was very vague and bereft of any details and particulars. This respondent denies the very liability of himself to the suit claim made by the applicant/plaintiff. 6. He contends further that he is having immovable properties in the city of Madras worth about several lakhs and paying income tax for individuals on behalf of the Hindu Undivided Family. He avers that he is living permanently and that just to tarnish his image and status in the society, the present suit and the applications were filed against him also for no liability of any kind so far as this respondent is concerned. He avers that he is living permanently and that just to tarnish his image and status in the society, the present suit and the applications were filed against him also for no liability of any kind so far as this respondent is concerned. He denies that he was in the film production line and that he never intended to move outside the jurisdiction of this Court with a view to evade the suit liability. He denies particularly that he never utilised the funds of the applicant/plaintiff, nor undertook to pay any amount, on or before 30-7-1989 as alleged. On the basis of the vexatious claim, basing on the notice dated 5-6-1989, the applicant cannot claim the remedy of interim injunction to prohibit the Garnishee from allowing the first respondent to operate the accounts, as he has not established the prima facie case. On the other hand, the said interim prohibitory order passed by this Court is causing every havoc and obstacle in his routine course of business. He states that he has advanced a sum of Rs. 97, 000/- to the defendants 1 to 3, that they have not paid anything and that consequently, he filed a civil suit in this Court against them and the same is pending disposal. 6A. This respondent contends that the affidavits filed in support of the above three applications contains nothing warranting the indulgence of this Court and that as such, no materials of any kind has been placed to grant the order as prayed for and that upon the abovesaid ground, this respondent wants that all the above three applications have to be dismissed in limine. 7. Application No. 4374 of 1991 in the suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the first respondent under Order 14, Rule 8 of Original Side Rules, read with O. 38, Rule 5 and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, seeking the attachment of the immovable properties of the first respondent, more fully described in the Judge's summons, till the disposal of the suit on the same and identical grounds taken in the affidavits filed in O.A. Nos. 660 of 1991 to 662 of 1991. In view of the abovesaid facts, it has become unnecessary for me to traverse the averments made in the affidavits once again in this application. 8. 660 of 1991 to 662 of 1991. In view of the abovesaid facts, it has become unnecessary for me to traverse the averments made in the affidavits once again in this application. 8. The first respondent in the above application has filed a common affidavit in which he contends inter alia that he is not at all liable to pay any amount to the applicant, nor he gave any undertaking or assurance to pay the suit claim as a whole or any part at any time and that in fact, he denies emphatically each and everyone of the averments made by the applicants in the affidavit filed in support of the application. He admits that the house property situate at Anna Nagar, Madras a worth several lakh of rupees belongs to him absolutely and that he never had transactions of any kind with the applicant/plaintiff nor liable to pay any amount to the applicant. In other respects, this respondent reiterated his stand taken in his counter-affidavit filed in O.A. Nos. 660 to 662 of 1991 and on that basis, he wants that the application is to be dismissed. 9. Applications Nos. 4894 of 1991 and 5903 of 1991 were filed by the first respondent in all the above applications who is the 4th defendant in the suit against the plaintiff herein under Order 14, Rule 8 and Order 9, Rule 19 of the Original Side Rules read with S. 151 of Civil Procedure Code, seeking the relief of setting aside the order passed by this Court on 30-8-1991 in Application No. 4374 of 1991, directing the applicant/respondent to furnish security and to direct the office of this Court to keep the Document No. 4, the alleged letter of guarantee dated 12-6-1991 in safe custody, till the disposal of the suit. 10. The grounds urged in the affidavit filed in support of the Application No. 4894 of 1991 are identical and similar to those of the contentions raised in the counter-affidavits of the first respondent filed in O.A. Nos. 10. The grounds urged in the affidavit filed in support of the Application No. 4894 of 1991 are identical and similar to those of the contentions raised in the counter-affidavits of the first respondent filed in O.A. Nos. 660 to 662 of 1991 and Application No. 4374 of 1991 and that upon the same grounds, the applicant/first respondent wants the order passed by this Court on 30-8-1991 is to be set aside and further since the applicants dispute the signature in the alleged letter of guarantee dated 12-6-1989 filed along with the plaint as Document No. 4 and that the said letter of guarantee is a very material piece of evidence inherent with the forged signature of the applicant and with a view to take necessary steps to examine the genuineness of the signature found in Document No. 4, he prays that the said document is to be kept in safe custody of this Court for the proper appreciation and adjudication of the entire matter in hand among the parties herein. 11. The plaintiff figuring as the respondent in these applications filed the counter-affidavit and in which, he denies each and everyone of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the applications by the first respondent/4th defendant; but, on the other hand, he reiterates his stand taken in the affidavit filed in support of the applications O. A. Nos. 660 to 662 of 1991 and Application No. 4374 of 1991. 12. Upon the above rival pleadings, the questions that arise for consideration are the following : (1) Whether the applicant/plaintiff has made out a prima facie case warranting the indulgence of this Court to grant interim injunction against the first respondent as prayed for in Original Applications Nos. 660 to 662 of 1991 and to grant the order of ad interim attachment of immovable property as prayed for in Application No. 4374 of 1991 ? (2) Whether the 4th defendant/first respondent as applicant has made a case to set aside the order passed by this Court on 30-8-1991 in Application No. 4374 of 1991 ? (3) Whether a case has been made out to keep the plaint Document No. 4 in the safe custody till the disposal of the suit as prayed for ? 13. Points Nos. 1 to 3 : The reliefs claimed in the suit is one for the recovery of a sum of Rs. (3) Whether a case has been made out to keep the plaint Document No. 4 in the safe custody till the disposal of the suit as prayed for ? 13. Points Nos. 1 to 3 : The reliefs claimed in the suit is one for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1, 77, 033.35 with subsequent interest and costs against four defendants among whom the 4th defendant is the first respondent in all the above applications. The grounds upon which the order of ad interim injunction and attachment before judgement of the immovable property of the first respondent sought for under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 and Order 38, Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code are that the applicant/plaintiff in advancing the loan of Rs. 20, 000/- to the defendants 1 to 3, the first respondent, viz., the 4th defendant in the suit was instrumental and through whom and upon his undertaking to repay the suit loan as a guarantor, he applicant advanced the loan to the defendants 1 to 3 and that even on 12-6-1989, a letter of guarantee was allegedly given by the first respondent undertaking to discharge the suit liability on behalf of the other defendants, the suit as well as the above applications were filed by the plaintiff for the reliefs asked for therein. Ex. A.1 is a copy of the notice dated 5-6-1989 given on behalf of the plaintiff/applicant to the first respondent alongwith Ex.A. 2, a letter written by the first respondent to the applicant herein on 12-6-1989, but it was written on behalf of M/s. Sai Prabha Productions signed by one Mr. P. J. Prabhakara Reddy admitting the suit claim were relied on by the applicant herein to substantiate his case. P. J. Prabhakara Reddy admitting the suit claim were relied on by the applicant herein to substantiate his case. Thus, it is seen that the sheet-anchor for the entire suit claim is the alleged letter of guarantee given by the first respondent in favour of the applicant on 12-6-1989 which is the Document No. 4 along with the plaint and about which the contention of the first respondent is that the same was a forged document created with the forged signature of his, with a view to rope him in the suit liability falsely and that, therefore, to take appropriate steps to examine his signature and to decide its originality or the bogus nature of the same, it was the prayer of the first respondent to keep the said document under the safe custody of this Court to take appropriate steps at the relevant point of time. It has to be seen that the other defendants in the suit were conspicuously not being added as the respondents in these applications for the obvious reasons known to the applicant/plaintiff, but significantly the garnishee with whom the first respondent is having Savings Bank Account in his individual capacity as well as Hindu Undivided Family has been added as the second respondent and against whom the relief as provided under Order 38, Rule 5 and Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code are being asked for. The defence of the first respondent in all the above applications are one of total denial. In other words, the first respondent is consistently resisting the applications with the specific plea that he never had any transaction with the applicant nor borrowed any amount either for himself or for the other defendants in the suit nor gave any letter of guarantee either on 12-6-1989 or at any point of time and that therefore he is not liable to pay any amount to the applicant/plaintiff on any account and that the alleged letter of guarantee dated 12-6-1989 itself is vitiated with rank forgery and that, therefore, as there were no materials given in the affidavit as contemplated by law, the same are to be rejected in limine and that the interim prohibitory order and direction given to furnish security are to be cancelled forthwith and his Application No. 5903 of 1991 is to be allowed. 14. 14. It has to be seen that the second respondent/Garnishee has not come forward with any objections. None of the defendants except the first respondent were added as parties in these applications to substantiate the liability of the suit transactions had with the applicant/plaintiff at any point of time. These aspects of the plaintiff's attitude assumes much significance and importance in the context of the specific and consistent plea taken on behalf of the first respondent denying the very liability and suit transactions with the applicant. In so far as the reliefs claimed in all the above applications are concerned, I may straightway observe that the prima facie case of the applicant through the averments made in the affidavits filed in support of all the applications are to be necessarily established before warranting any order to be passed as contemplated by law. A cursory perusal of all the identical affidavits filed in all the above applications clinches the fact that the relevant averments have been made only in paras 5 and 6 of the same which are extracted as hereunder : "5. I submit that the defendants are trying to move out of the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court, in order to evade the liability. Apart from that, they are in film production line. Once the production is over, they may move out of jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and it may not be possible to obtain any amount even after obtaining decree against the defendants. 6. I beg to submit that the respondent herein is the person who utilised the entire funds and who has given undertaking that he will make the payment on or before July, 1989. Till date, no payment has been made by the first respondent. The first respondent is also the person who is doing all business in finance and he may also move out of the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court in order to evade the liability of the claim made by the plaintiff. It is in these circumstances, I am filing the application for attachment of properties of the first respondent. The first respondent is having account in the garnishee bank and the first respondent may be restrained in withdrawing any amount from the hank. Further, the first respondent having movable properties at the properties more fully described in the judges summon and the property also may be attached. The first respondent is having account in the garnishee bank and the first respondent may be restrained in withdrawing any amount from the hank. Further, the first respondent having movable properties at the properties more fully described in the judges summon and the property also may be attached. Even though the amounts were advanced in the year 1985, till date, the applicant has not received any amount except a sum of Rs. 4, 800/-. The respondent utilised the amount given by the applicant and utilised the same." 15. Except the above two paragraphs, in the context of the specific denial of the respondents, no other averments were made available by the applicant warranting any order to be passed as contemplated under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 as well as Order 38, Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code. In the present context, as this Court has repeatedly held that the remedy provided under Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure is an extraordinary one and more care should be taken when granting in favour of any person whose right to recover the money will fructify the decree in case the same is passed on being established and so the Courts should cautiously exercise the above said provision of law. But the facts of the present case more particularly the averments made in paras 5 and 6 of the affidavit as above referred to, I may straightway reject that the applicant/plaintiff has not even neared to the legal norms enunciated in several rulings of this Court as well as the procedural law well laid and formulated in the Code of Civil Procedure. The applicant has miserably failed to establish even the semblance of the prima facie case as warranted by law. As such, the affidavit filed in all the above affidavits are totally bereft of any material particulars or inadequacy of grounds or the circumstances even to warrant this Court to pass the order of interim injunction or the attachment of immovable properties, pending disposal of the suit. I may even observe that unless and until the applicant/plaintiff establish the liability of the first respondent, he is not entitled to have any remedy as being asked for at present. Thus, on a careful consideration of the factual aspects, I am so clear in my mind in holding that the applicants in all the above applications except Applications Nos. I may even observe that unless and until the applicant/plaintiff establish the liability of the first respondent, he is not entitled to have any remedy as being asked for at present. Thus, on a careful consideration of the factual aspects, I am so clear in my mind in holding that the applicants in all the above applications except Applications Nos. 4894 and 5903 of 1991 has virtually and deliberately failed to establish even the semblance of prima facie case inherent with his averments. 16. Thiru R. Mohan, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent drew my attention to the following case laws, in support of the case of the respondents. (1) A case law reported in Y. Vijayalakshmiamma v. M/s. Sakinala Lakshmaiah and Sons, wherein it was held as follows :- "Under Order 38, Rule 5(4) an order of attachment without compliance with the provisions of sub-rule (1) will be void. So, before an order of attachment before judgement is made, the Court must satisfy itself that the defendant is about to dispose of or remove the whole or part of his property. Secondly, this satisfaction must be derived from material on record either by way of affidavit or otherwise; it cannot be whimsical nor could it be illusory and it should also be based on clear and convincing proof on enquiry that the order is needed for protection of plaintiff. Not only that, the Court must insist upon strict proof of allegations made in affidavit. It is only on proof positive that the defendant is, with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed, either about to dispose of or remove the whole or any part of his property, the Court will pass an order directing defendant within certain time to be fixed, either to furnish security in such sum as may be specified or to appear and show cause as to why he should not furnish security. Before the Court gives such a mandate, the condition precedent is the satisfaction to be arrived at as stated above." (2) Srinivasan, T. v. V. Srinivasan, (1985) 98 Mad LW 78 : 1985 AIR(Madras) 269) wherein it was held as follows (para 4) :- "A mechanical adaptation of the language of the relevant provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the Code, namely, Order 38, Rule 5 thereof would not suffice the purpose. There must be positive and definite material on the two points set out in Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code, viz., (1) that the defendant is about to dispose of the whole or part of his property, and (2) that the disposal is with the intention of obstructing or delaying the execution of any decree that may be passed against him. An attachment before judgement is not a process to be adopted as a matter of course. The suit is yet to be tried and the defence of the defendant is yet to be tested. The plaintiff only stands a prima facie chance of success in the suit. At this nebulous juncture, an extra ordinary relief is being sought for by the plaintiff. This relief could be granted only if the conditions for its grant, as per the provisions of the Code, stand satisfied. This process is never meant as a lever for the plaintiff to coerce the defendant to come to terms. Hence utmost caution and circumspection should guide the court. The court must advert to the provisions of the Code in this regard, advert to and investigate the allegations thrown against the defendant, satisfy itself that a case for attachment before judgement has been made out and then pass the requisite order. There principles have come to be recognized as mandated to the Court and if the Court acts in breach thereof, such an order of the Court will have to be ignored as the result of dereliction of duty." (3) N. Pappammal v. L. Chidambaram, 1984 AIR(Madras) 70 wherein Justice Ratnam has held out the essential ingredients that required for invoking the power of Court to effect an attachment before judgement under Order 38, Rule 5(1) on the same footings as held out by other Courts of law, in a more elaborate way especially in paras 6 and 8 of the said case law. (4) G. Kuppathi Mudaliar v. V. Murugesan, 1982 AIR(Madras) 49 wherein this Court has held out as follows (paras 2 and 3) :- "The jurisdiction of the court to order attachment before judgement arises only when it is satisfied by affidavit or otherwise that the defendant is about to dispose of the whole, or any part of his property with the intention to obstruct or delay the execution of the decree that may be passed against him. So the sine qua non for an order of attachment before judgement is the mala fide intention and the conduct of the defendant in disposing of or about to dispose of his property with the dishonest intention of defeating or delaying the decree that may be passed in the suit. As the Court must act with the utmost circumspection before issuing an order of attachment, the affidavit filed in support of the application for attachment before judgement must clearly establish that the defendant, intent to obstruct or delay the execution of the decree that may be passed against him is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property. When the order of attachment is made without complying with these provisions the attachment is void." 5. V. K. Nataraja Gounder v. S. A. Bangaru Reddiar, 1965 AIR(Madras) 212 wherein it was held as hereunder (paras 4 and 5) : "The remedy of an attachment before judgement is certainly extraordinary. If granted, it casts an obligation on the party against whom it is made, even before he is heard in defence of the suit. The Court has therefore to act with the utmost circumspection before issuing such an order to avoid it becoming a weapon of oppression in the hands of unscrupulous plaintiffs. In such an application, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to state the grounds on which he entertains the belief or apprehension that the defendant would dispose of or remove the property, or, to give the source of his information and belief in the matter. A verbatim copy of the provisions of the Code in the affidavit in support of the application, or a mechanical repetition of the language of the Code without an iota or substratum of truth underlying the allegation, is merely colourable and constitutes an abuse of process of court. The court must insist upon strict proof of the said allegations. A verbatim copy of the provisions of the Code in the affidavit in support of the application, or a mechanical repetition of the language of the Code without an iota or substratum of truth underlying the allegation, is merely colourable and constitutes an abuse of process of court. The court must insist upon strict proof of the said allegations. Any order of the Court without a proper investigation whether the allegations are well founded or not constitutes a gross dereliction of duty." 17. Following the legal ratios held out in all the above referred case laws and that in the context that this Court has repeatedly held following the above ratios, I may observe that there is no iota of averments or allegations or facts made in the affidavits filed in all the above applications on behalf of the plaintiffs and that, therefore, on the basis of the total inadequate materials and absence of valid grounds, the extraordinary relief of attachment before judgement of the property of the first respondent and the interim injunction cannot be granted in favour of the applicants and that further the affidavits filed in all the applications are based on mere conjectures and surmises and that there is no proper ground for warranting the indulgence of this Court, as contemplated by law. Since it was the case of the 4th defendant in Application No. 5903 of 1991 that the alleged letter of guarantee dated 12-6-1989 filed along with the plaint, viz., Document No. 4 is inherent with rank forgery of his signature and that there is inconsistency in mentioning the date of letter of guarantee as pleaded in the affidavit and the one found in the said document, it was the prayer of the first respondent that with a view to prove its genuineness and probe the truth or otherwise of the signature found in the said document, it is to be kept in the safe custody. Having considered the said contentions, I am satisfied with the availability of material aspects and without expressing any of my opinion, I may observe that in ordering the said document to be kept in safe custody, it will not cause any prejudice to either of the parties, but it will be helpful for the proper and total adjudication of the matter in hand and as such. I am satisfied to grant the relief as prayed for in the said applications. 18. Thus having considered the factual aspects as pleaded in the affidavits and counter-affidavits and the rival contentions advanced on behalf of the parties herein, in the context of the well settled legal principles, I am fully satisfied to hold that the applicant/plaintiff in all the first four applications failed miserably and has not established even the semblance of the prima facie case and as such I answer the points Nos. 1 and 2 against the applicant/plaintiff and in favour of the first respondent/4th defendant in Application No. 5903 of 1991. 19. In the result, Original Applications Nos. 660, 661 and 662 of 1991 and Application No. 4374 of 1991 are dismissed with no order as to costs. Consequent to the order passed in the abovesaid applications, the interim prohibitory order passed already and the notice directed to furnish security, if any, are set aside and accordingly, Application No. 4894 of 1991 filed by the first respondent is allowed with no costs. Application No. 5903 of 1991 is allowed with no order as to costs and accordingly, it is ordered that the Document No. 4, filed along with the plaint is to be kept in safe custody in this Court, till the disposal of the suits. Order accordingly.