( 1 ) THIS is an application for preferring an urgent appeal from an order dated 4. 3. 2004 whereby the interlocutory Court disposed of two applications made on behalf of the respondent/appellant, one for judgment on admission and another for attachment before judgment. ( 2 ) THE suit was filed for price of goods sold and delivered, the principal claim being a little above Rs. 12 lakh. A claim for interest for a nearly equal sum has also been included. The claim is without disputes an unsecured one. ( 3 ) THE appellant/defendant is located at Bombay, owns a lot of a real property there and has been carrying on business for a long time. ( 4 ) IT is stated in the plaint that a part of the cause of action has arisen within the local limits of the Original Jurisdiction of our Court and leave to file the suit was obtained on that allegation. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, the goods were all sent from Calcutta to Bombay and used therefor the appellant's business. ( 6 ) THE learned Judge in the Court below has passed an order that if the appellant desires to sell any fixed assets it should obtain leave from the interlocutory Court at Calcutta. ( 7 ) MR. Mukherjee for the appellant submitted that this is an order in the nature of an attachment before judgment and he placed before us under Order 38 rule 5 and Order 21 Rule 54 to substantiate his submission. ( 8 ) MR. Bose for the respondents submitted, however, that the order is more like an order passed under Order 39 Rule 1, although the order does not go as far as a blanket order of injunction, it permits the defendant to sell with leave of Court. According to him, the Court has really moulded the belief. ( 8 ) MR. Bose for the respondents submitted, however, that the order is more like an order passed under Order 39 Rule 1, although the order does not go as far as a blanket order of injunction, it permits the defendant to sell with leave of Court. According to him, the Court has really moulded the belief. ( 9 ) WHETHER the matter is looked upon as half an order for attachment before judgment or half an order of injunction restraining the hands of the defendant, the Court cannot have jurisdiction to pass such an order in a pure and unsecured money claim, unless there are reasonably well supported allegations made by the plaintiff-petitioner that the defendant-respondent is engaging in some sort of fraudulent activity or in some impermissible way is seeking to defraud the creditor by disposing of the defendant's assets or putting those otherwise out of reach of court. ( 10 ) ALLEGATIONS of this type are singularly absent in the respondent's petition in the Court below. The appellant is a running company and has a positive balance of assets over liabilities even though it has been incurring losses recently. That it is trying to become a profitable concern by dealing with its real property in the extremely competitive business atmosphere of Bombay, is, by itself, no reason why it should come every time to Calcutta to obtain leave for developing land which belongs itself, for the purpose of securing a claim in a suit simpliciter for price of goods sold and delivered. ( 11 ) ON the basis of the above reasoning, we would have passed a without prejudice order of stay but learned Counsel agreed that a stay would in effect dispose of the appeal. ( 12 ) AS such our order is not without prejudice so far as it is an interlocutory order, but it is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the suit or in any other proceeding. Affidavits are not invited. Allegations in the petition cannot be taken to be admitted. There will be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the petition. The undertakings are discharged. Any necessity of making the appeal ready any further is dispensed with. The appeal is treated as on the day's list. Affidavits are not invited. Allegations in the petition cannot be taken to be admitted. There will be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the petition. The undertakings are discharged. Any necessity of making the appeal ready any further is dispensed with. The appeal is treated as on the day's list. The application and the appeal are both allowed to this extent that any necessity of obtaining the Court's leave before dealing with any of its fixed assets by the appellant is hereby removed. The respondents will pay the appellants their costs both in the Court below and before us in regard to both the applications in the Court below, and the appeal and the application before us. All parties and all others concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this dictated order on the usual undertakings.