ORDER 18.8.2004 — Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as opposite parties. 2. This writ application is directed against an order dated 15.9.2003 passed by the Ad hoc Addl. District Judge, Bala¬sore while disposing of an application under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C. registered as Misc. Case No. 37/2003 which arose out of Money Suit No. 28/27 of 2003/2002. 3. The present petitioner as plaintiff in the Court below filed a suit in the Court of the Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- from opposite party No. 1-defendant. Apprehending that the said de¬fendant- opposite party No. 1 with a view to cause delay in execu¬tion of the decree, which may be passed against him in the afore¬said suit, is trying to take his property away from the jurisdic¬tion of the aforesaid court, an application was also filed for attachment of the property of the defendant before the judgment. The defendant was working as Clerk-Cashier in Vijaya Bank, Bala¬sore. According to the learned counsel for opposite party No. 1-defendant, the defendant has already lost his job. The trial Court while considering the application found that the apprehen¬sion of the petitioner- plaintiff was unfounded because there was no allegation that the defendant with the sole motive to delay the execution of any decree that might be passed against him is trying to transfer the property. 4. The trial Court refused to pass any order before the judgment. But, this Court by its order dated 3.2.2004 directed opposite party No. 2, the Vijaya Bank to withhold payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- if the same is payable to opposite party No. 1 and the said order is continuing till date. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would be in the interest of the plaintiff, if the suit is dis¬posed of at an early date and the order dated 3.2.2004 passed by this Court is allowed to operate till disposal of the suit. I find from the impugned order that present opposite party No.1, who was working as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in the Vijaya Bank, Bala¬sore was a tenant in the house of the petitioner. The petitioner in good faith gave opposite party No. 1 a sum of Rs. I find from the impugned order that present opposite party No.1, who was working as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in the Vijaya Bank, Bala¬sore was a tenant in the house of the petitioner. The petitioner in good faith gave opposite party No. 1 a sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- to keep the same in the Vijaya Bank by opening a fixed deposit account in his name, but opposite party No. 1 instead of deposit¬ing the same has misappropriated the amount for which the peti¬tioner filed the Money Suit for realisation of the aforesaid amount. This being the factual matrix of the case, particularly when opposite party No. 1 is out of job and he is yet to get more than a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- from opposite party No. 2, the apprehension of the petitioner that opposite party No. 1 may take away the entire amount that he would receive towards his dues from the Bank and he cannot execute the decree in the Court that may be passed against opposite party No. 1, as the opposite party No. 1 has neither any landed nor any immovable property appears to be correct. 6. In these circumstances, I allow continuance of the order passed by this Court dated 3.2.2004 only with the modifica¬tion that opposite party No. 2 shall withhold the payment up to the sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- from the dues of opposite party No. 1, till disposal of the suit. Let the suit be concluded within a period of 8 months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. The writ application is disposed of accordingly. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Application disposed of.