JUDGMENT - D.K. DESHMUKH, J.:---This is a Notice of Motion taken out by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have filed the Summary Suit seeking a money decree against the defendants in the amount of Rs. 32,36,027.40 ps. According to the plaintiffs, an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- was lent by the plaintiffs to defendant No. 1- Firm of which, according to the plaintiffs, defendant Nos. 2 to 5 are the partners, which was to be repaid by the defendants with interest and that defendant No. 2 had given a personal guarantee for repayment of the said amount. According to the plaintiffs, as the amount was not repaid as per the Agreement, a Demand Notice was issued on 1st August, 1997. That Demand Notice was replied by the defendants by their reply dated 16th August, 1997. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants in their reply dated 16th August, 1997 admitted that the amount is due. The plaintiffs in the affidavit filed in support of this Notice of Motion has stated that the defendants had given to the plaintiffs post dated cheques for repayment of the amount. However, the said cheque were dishonoured. According to the averments in the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion, the defendants are heavily indebted. Therefore, in order to defeat and delay the execution of the decree, that may be passed against them, the defendants are likely to transfer the tenancy of the office premises at Opera House. The plaintiffs in paragraph 8 of their affidavit in support had given details of the transaction that the defendants are likely to enter into for transfer of tenancy. The plaintiffs therefore sought attachment before judgment by this Notice of Motion of the two properties, viz. the office premises at Opera House, Mumbai, as also a residential flat at Maker Towers, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai. By ad interim order, this Court granted temporary injunction in relation to the residential flat. The plaintiffs have filed further affidavit in this Notice of Motion stating therein that the defendant have, during the pendency of this Notice of Motion, actually surrendered the tenancy of the office premises at Opera House and claimed that they have surrendered their tenancy of those premises without receiving any money. The plaintiffs have alleged that they have learnt that the defendants have transferred the office premises and that they have received huge amount to the tune of Rs. The plaintiffs have alleged that they have learnt that the defendants have transferred the office premises and that they have received huge amount to the tune of Rs. 2.5 crores for transfer of the tenancy. The plaintiffs, therefore, submit that now the residential flat has to be attached to secure their claim in the suit. 2.In reply, that is filed on behalf of the defendants, it is firstly urged that defendant Nos. 3 to 5 are not the partners of defendant Nos. 1 Firm. It is further urged that the plaintiffs have, in the affidavit filed in Suit No. 5008 of 1998, which is a civil suit filed by the defendants against the plaintiffs, admitted that the loan amount has been repaid by the defendants. It is further submitted that surrender of tenancy premises was made because the defendants were not in a position to pay the mount of monthly rent which was to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- to 20,000/-. Learned Counsel appearing for the defendants relying on judgment of the Orissa High Court in the case of (Tatanagar Transport Corporation others v. Ajanta Enterprises another)1, reported in A.I.R. 1978 Orissa Page 107, as also on a judgment of this Court in the case of (Bhimrao Nagojirao Patankar v. Sakharam Sabaji Kantak others)2, reported in A.I.R. 1922 Bombay 277, submits that merely because the defendants are heavily indebted, an inference that they are likely to dispose of their property cannot be drawn. Now if the rival submissions and the record of this case are perused, it becomes clear that the defendants in their reply to the Demand Notice sent by the plaintiffs have admitted that the amount is due. It is further clear from perusal of the plaint in Suit No. 5008 of 1998. Which is filed by the defendants, that they admitted that the amount is received by them from the plaintiffs. So far as the submission that defendant Nos. 3 to 5 are not the partners of defendant No. 1 Firm are concerned, the averments made in the plaint in the abovereferred suit filed by the defendants falsifies that case. Learned Counsel appearing for the defendants submitted that the averments made in the aboveferred suit filed by the defendants that the defendant Nos. 2 to 5 are partners of defendant No. 1 are in correct as they have retired. However, no details as to when defendants Nos. Learned Counsel appearing for the defendants submitted that the averments made in the aboveferred suit filed by the defendants that the defendant Nos. 2 to 5 are partners of defendant No. 1 are in correct as they have retired. However, no details as to when defendants Nos. 2 to 5 have retired from the said Firm and as to who have been taken as partners in their place, are not given. No extract from the Register maintained by the Register of Firms has been produced and, therefore, prima facie, from the averments made by the plaintiffs in the plaint, and the averments made by the defendants in the Suit No. 5008 of 1998, it is clear that defendant Nos. 2 to 5 are the partners of defendant No. 1- Firm. Now while making an order of attachment before judgment, the Court has to draw an inference from the facts disclosed before it, whether the defendants are likely to dispose of their properties in order to defeat or obstruct the execution of decree that may be passed against them. The facts disclosed in this case are that there are huge amounts due, not only to the present plaintiffs but to others also who have filed suits against the defendants. The facts disclosed in this case are that there are huge amounts due, not only to the present plaintiffs but to others also who have filed suits against the defendants. According to the defendants, their financial position is such that they are not even in a position to pay the monthly rent of Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-. It is to be noted here that the business premises at Opera House, the tenancy of which has been surrendered by the defendants, are situated in a business locality at a prominent place and that the area of the business premises was 2500 sq.ft. Therefore, it is impossible to believe that the defendants have surrendered the tenancy to the landlords without receiving any money. The conduct of the defendants coming to the Court with this case, and expecting this Court to believe that the defendants have surrendered the tenancy of business premises at Opera House, Mumbai, without receiving any amount in return, shows that the defendants are desperate. In my opinion, this conduct of the defendants is enough to draw an inference against the defendants. In my opinion, this conduct of the defendants is enough to draw an inference against the defendants. It is pertinent to note here that in the affidavit filed in support of the Notice of Motion, the plaintiffs had expressed their apprehension that the defendants are likely to dispose of the property at Opera House. The property at Opera House has been disposed of during the pendency of this Motion, it shows the apprehension expressed by the plaintiffs was well founded. 3.Taking overall view, in my opinion, this is a fit case where the attachment before judgment has to be made in relation to the property which have now remained. In this view of the matter, therefore, there shall be an order in terms of prayer Clause a(i) as also a(ii) excluding the bracketed portion. Prayer Clauses a(i) and a(ii) read as under: "(a) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit--- (i) the defendant Nos. 2 3 be ordered by this Hon'ble Court to furnish security to the sum of Rs. 32,36,027.40 ps. within such time and the terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper: (ii) In the event of defendant Nos. 2 3 failing to furnish such security or failing to show cause as to why they should not furnish the same, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to attach the right, title and interest of the defendant Nos. 2 3 in (the office premises bearing No. North 'B', North 'C' North 'F' situate at Mehta Mahal, Mathew Road, Opera House, Mumbai 400 004) and the right, title and interest of the defendant No. 2 in the residential flat situate at 151/B, Maker Towers, Cuffee Parade, Mumbai 400 005 or any part thereof and more particularly described in Exhibit "A" to the affidavit in support together with all moveables and articles lying and being therein (or such portion thereof as appears to this  Hon'ble Court to be sufficient to satisfy the decree that will be passed in the suit.)" 4.Notice of Motion is disposed of accordingly. 5.Four weeks time is granted to the defendants to furnish security. Order accordingly. -----