Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : Sugesan Transport Private Limited, the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for recovery of the amount of Rs. 10,53,759/- together with interest at 36% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 7,39,762/- towards hiring charges (1) 2 No. HM 2021 front end loader, and (2) one number Mobile Crane by entering into an agreement dated 29-1-1998, 20-1-1998 and 11-7-1998 at the plaintiff's Madras Office. 2. This Court in A. No. 1803 of 1999 seeking for attachment before judgment by issuing prohibitory order to the garnishees, passed an interim order on 21-6-1989 prohibiting the fourth respondent, Deputy Chief Engineer, Gauge Convertion, Southern Railway, Egmore, Chennai from disbursing money due to the respondents 1 to 3 for the contract work done by them. 3. The respondents 1 to 3 filed an application before this Court in A. No. 2418 of 1999 to vacate the said interim order dated 21-6-1999. The plaintiff/applicant again filed another application in A. No. 3828 of 1999 to pass interim decree for Rs. 6,21,696/- as per the statement of accounts dated 19-8-1998, the document No. 4 filed along with the plaint. 4. The counsel for both the parties filed counter and reply in the above petitions. 5. I have heard Mr. Krishnamachari, counsel appearing for the plaintiff/applicant and Mr. Bhavanandam, counsel appearing for the defendants/respondents 1 to 3. 6. According to the counsel for the plaintiff/applicant, the defendants/respondents through the statement of accounts dated 19-8-1998 admitted the liability to the tune of Rs. 6,21,696/- and since the defendants are already staying in Hyderabad, outside the jurisdiction of this Court, if the prohibitory order prohibiting the payment of the outstanding bills to the defendants, is vacated, the plaintiff will be put to hardship, as there will be no security for the due realisation of the due amounts. 7. 6,21,696/- and since the defendants are already staying in Hyderabad, outside the jurisdiction of this Court, if the prohibitory order prohibiting the payment of the outstanding bills to the defendants, is vacated, the plaintiff will be put to hardship, as there will be no security for the due realisation of the due amounts. 7. On the other hand, the counsel for the defendants would submit that they are the permanent residents of Andhra Pradesh doing work for Railways and other Departments of Central Government on all-India basis, that by getting an ex parte order by misleading this Court, the plaintiff has done lot of injury to the business and the reputation of the defendants, that the suit amount claimed by the plaintiff is not correct, as the log books would show the correct figure regarding the actual due payable to the plaintiff by the defendants and that the statement of accounts produced by the plaintiff as the fourth document stated to have been signed by the third defendant is not correct, as the third defendant actually did not put his signature and consequently, the plaintiff cannot claim the liability to the tune of Rs. 6,21,696/- as admitted by the defendants. He would also state that in order to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, the suit amount has been inflated as Rs. 11,00,000/- and since the entire transaction took place in Villupuram, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 8. I have carefully considered the respective submissions. 9. As regards the jurisdiction, it shall be pointed out that the plaintiff has already filed an application before this Court in A. No. 1762 of 1999 to grant leave to sue and the same was granted by this Court on 16-2-1999. This order has become final, as there is no application filed before this Court to revoke the leave already granted. It is also seen from the plaint and the documents that an agreement has been entered into between the parties at Chennai. Since a part of the transaction has taken place in the jurisdiction of this Court, I am not able to agree with the contention of the counsel for the defendants with reference to the point of jurisdiction. 10. It is also seen from the plaint and the documents that an agreement has been entered into between the parties at Chennai. Since a part of the transaction has taken place in the jurisdiction of this Court, I am not able to agree with the contention of the counsel for the defendants with reference to the point of jurisdiction. 10. As regards the request for vacating the prohibitory order, it shall be mentioned that though prohibitory order was sought by the plaintiff in respect of 4th and 5th respondent, the garnishees, this Court by the order dated 21-6-1989 issued prohibitory order only against the 4th respondent. 11. It is also an admitted fact that subsequent to the filing of the suit, the defendants sent a draft for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards part payment of the dues payable to the plaintiff. It is stated by the defendants in the counter affidavit that the said draft was sent even without knowing that the suit has been filed against them. The plaintiff/applicant himself would state in the affidavit filed in A.No. 1803 of 1999 while requesting probitory order, that "if the defendants furnish security to the satisfaction of this Honourable Court, then suitable orders can be passed." 12. As stated by the defendants in the counter-affidavit that they are the contractors of the Railways and having connection with the Central Government in the contract work for the past three decades and they are also having business transaction with the plaintiff for sufficient period and they are quite solvent and they have turn-over not less than crores of rupees and at present, they are doing business in the jurisdiction of this Court, I am of the view that the prohibitory order passed by this Court on 21-6-1999 could be suitably modified. 13. 13. It is settled law, as laid down in T. Srinivasan v. V. Srinivasan 1985 AIR(Madras) 269), that an attachment before judgment in the form of a prohibitory order is not a process to be adopted as a matter of course, unless there is a positive material on the two points set out in the Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of the Code, namely, (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. 14. In view of the above factual circumstances, I am not able to hold that the plaintiff would be entitled to the prohibitory order, in the light of the absence of the positive material in this case as provided in Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of the Code. 15. Therefore, while cancelling the prohibitory order issued by this Court as against the fourth respondent dated 21-6-1999, it would be just and appropriate to direct the defendants 1 to 3 to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and furnish security for the balance amount of the suit claim to the credit of the suit within four weeks from today and accordingly directed. 16. Since the amount sought for by interim decree, namely, Rs. 6,21,696/- through A. No. 3828 of 1999 is disputed, I do not find any ground at this stage to pass the interim decree. 17. With the above observations, these applications are disposed of. Order accordingly.