Judgment :- (1.) All the aforesaid three applications are heard together as the same are arising out of the same suit as mentioned above. Fact and law in issue of all these applications are inter-connected and identical. Therefore, there cannot be any difficulty to decide the same with one and common Judgment. (2.) The application being G.A. No. 2769 of 2004 has been taken out by the plaintiff above named for attachment before Judgement of the property as described in schedule B which mentions premises No. 4/2, Middleton Street, Kolkata - 700 071 including office building, land, furniture, fixture etc.; and order of injunction from alienating and/or encumbering B scheduled property mentioned in the suit in any manner whatsoever and, also for such further order or orders. The application being G.A. No. 3723 of 2004 has been made by apparently third party viz. M/s. Wellment Footwear Corporation Pvt. Ltd. for intervening in the suit for examining itself pro interesse suo and to contest the proceedings and for the relief for opening the padlock put by the Receiver on the apartment No. 101 on the first floor of the said premises. The third application being G.A. No. 3787 of 2004 has been taken out by the defendant for interim relief for direction upon the Receiver to open the lock put by him on the apartment No. 101 on the first floor of the premises No. 4/2, Middleton Street, Kolkata. (3.) The interlocutory application taken out by the plaintiff for the aforesaid relief is based on money claim for a principal sum of Rs.8,00.000/- together with interest and other claims for which it reaches to a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs and odd. The allegations made in the petition of the application for attachment before Judgment is that the defendant by disposing of the entire property wants to move outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Honble Court and most of the properties have been sold out. The sale proceeds were taken out of India for U.S.A. for setting up new factories etc. with the help of political high- ups of the State. The sale proceeds were taken out of India for U.S.A. for setting up new factories etc. with the help of political high- ups of the State. Further allegations have been made that the defendant may sell the property as stated in the schedule B of the application and prior to such sale the defendant has to be directed to furnish adequate security before the Honble Court so that the plaintiffs decree which might be passed is not frustrated in any way. It is stated in the petition that Rs. 8 lakhs and odd will be given by the defendant as admitted in writing as such the defendant in fact has no defence and having realized the same he wants to dispose of the property to frustrate the claim of the plaintiff. On the aforesaid statement and averment the plaintiff obtained an ad interim order dated 29th July, 2004 whereby and whereunder Honble Justice Subhro Kamal Mukherjee was pleased to restrain the defendant/respondent by an order of injunction from transferring and/or alienating the properties referred to in scheduled B to the application with liberty to the petitioner to pray for extension of the said interim order and also for further orders upon notice to the defendant. This order was effective for a period till 31st August, 2004. After serving of the notice the matter was moved again on a returnable date, Justice Mukherjee was pleased to pass order on 12th August, 2004 appointing Receiver in respect of the property of the defendant located at premises No. 4/2, Middleton Street, Kolkata - 700 071 including office building, furniture and fixtures etc. The Receiver was also directed to take symbolic possession of the said property and to prepare an inventory thereof. Pursuant to the aforesaid interim order the Receiver went to carry out the same. It was stated before the Court that the Receiver however could not carry out the order because of the closure of the doors of the said office prermises. As such, Justice Mukherjee on prayer being made was pleased to authorize the Receiver to break open the padlock and to take actual physical possession of the property in question. It appears from the record that inspite of notice being served on those days viz. 12th August, 2004 and 30th August, 2004 neither the defendant nor the aforesaid persons appeared before His Lordship. It appears from the record that inspite of notice being served on those days viz. 12th August, 2004 and 30th August, 2004 neither the defendant nor the aforesaid persons appeared before His Lordship. (4.) From the record it appears that the Receiver first visited the office premises on 21st August, 2004 and when he found that no person other than the defendant has been in possession of the said apartment being flat No. 101 of the said premises. On that date he could not take possession because of the closure of the doors. He, it appears to me, however walked over the property. On 21st September, 2004 His Lordship, Justice Mukherjee was pleased to allow the Receiver to take physical possession and for making inventory of the properties of the defendant in terms of the earlier order with police help. On 23rd September, 2004 the Receiver took physical possession of the said office premises and made inventory of articles, goods and properties lying therein. At the time of second visit he found that the notices, banners and posters of the defendant which were found earlier were removed and in their place two new signboards at the top of the entries of the fiat viz. Wellment Footwear Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Aajkal Publishers, A.K.G Industries Private Limited were found. (5.) On the aforesaid background Wellment being the third party made the aforesaid application. Similarly the defendant also made his application as stated above apart from contesting the plaintiffs application for interlocutory reliefs. (6.) After having made the said application the said M/s. Wellment Footwear Corporation Pvt. Ltd. preferred appeal against the prders dated 30th August, 2004 and 24th September, 2004. The Honble Appeal Court did not interfere with the said two orders and allowed the parties to contest the proceedings pending before the Learned Trial Judge. While disposing of the appeal Their Lordships by order dated 15th October, 2004 observed that parties will pray for liberty to obtain orders or relief from the first Court upon furnishing of full security. (7.) It is further recorded in the Judgment and order of the Appeal Court as follows : "When the dictation of the order is completed, Mr. Basu submits that his client will furnish cash security of Rs. 8,33,000/-with the learned Receiver by tomorrow. An undertaking is given to Court by Mr. (7.) It is further recorded in the Judgment and order of the Appeal Court as follows : "When the dictation of the order is completed, Mr. Basu submits that his client will furnish cash security of Rs. 8,33,000/-with the learned Receiver by tomorrow. An undertaking is given to Court by Mr. Chittaranjan Saha who is present in Court and whose residential address is 85, R.K. Chatterjee Road, Calcutta that the security will be furnished. As such, it is directed that upon furnishing of cash security with the learned Receiver by tomorrow to the extent of Rs. 8,33,000/-, the padlock will be opened and Mr. Basus client and Mr. Sinha Roys client will be allowed to operate their business under the Receiver, who at all material times will have liberty to visit the premises and inspect the same. Accounts of the business to be done after opening of padlock are to be maintained separately by Mr. Basus client and Mr. Sinha Roys client subject to disclosure or furnishing copies of the same as might be directed by tile first Court. The padlock will be opened after and only after the money has been encashed and the Receiver is satisfied that a sum of Rs.8,33,000/-is lying to the credit of his account for the purpose of satisfying the plaintiffs claims in the suit if the occasion so arises." (8.) Thereafter all these matters came up for final hearing before me. It is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner that security as promised to be furnished by the defendant before the Appeal Court has not been furnished. The undertaking was given and this has been breached with immunity. (9.) Under such circumstances learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that in view of the Appeal Courts order this Court has nothing to do except to compel the defendant to honour the commitment made before the Appeal Court. He submits that this Court is not merely Court of Law but equity as well. The claim of the plaintiff admitted by the defendant. The defendant is nothing but an alter ego of the various other fictitious companies which are floated and run by one Mr. Abhik Ghosh kingpin of this litigation for the purpose of defrauding people in the name of business. The order passed by the Appeal Court should not be allowed to be frustrated. The defendant is nothing but an alter ego of the various other fictitious companies which are floated and run by one Mr. Abhik Ghosh kingpin of this litigation for the purpose of defrauding people in the name of business. The order passed by the Appeal Court should not be allowed to be frustrated. According to him, strong prima facie case has been made out for confirming the order passed by this Court. (10.) Mr. Sinha Roy appearing for the defendant as well as the third party applicant submits that the Appeal Court passed order at the ad interim stage and there is no bar to give fresh look to the matter and Appeal Courts order should not be looked into. This Court shall proceed in accordance with law at the time of final hearing on the basis of the averment and statement made in the petition. He submits that no prima facie case has been made out for the attachment before Judgment for furnishing security. No sufficient case with the particulars has been made out that the defendant is selling the properties nor there is any proof of intention to delay or defeat the plaintiffs claim. The allegations are vague and having no acceptable evidence. Mere allegations made mechanically by reproduction of the language of the Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, are not sufficient. In ordec to get extraordinary relief on his application at the interlocutory stage one has to make out a strong case with definite evidence and not on mere conjecture or surmise. The running business of the defendant should not be disturbed. Moreover, the property which is sought to be attached does not belong to the defendant. It is merely tenanted portion of the building and the actual owner is M/s. Wellment Footwear Corporation Pvt. Ltd. As such, third partys property cannot be attached in any way. (11.) While placing the application for pro interesse suo he contends that the defendant is a merely tenant under the applicant company and in support thereof he has shown various documents and produced the document relating to title. It is shown that the said Wellment Footwear Corporation Pvt. Ltd. is the owner of the property and admittedly there has been no claim against this company. Mr. It is shown that the said Wellment Footwear Corporation Pvt. Ltd. is the owner of the property and admittedly there has been no claim against this company. Mr. Sinha Roy in support of his submission relied on various decisions of the various High Courts and Supreme Court which are as follows: AIR 1951 Calcutta 156, AIR 1960 ALL 615 , AIR 1970 SC 652 , AIR 1982 SC 65 , AIR 1985 Karnataka 282, AIR 1989 A.P. 214 , AIR 1989 Delhi 60, AIR 1993 Madras 246 and AIR 1998 Delhi 70. (12.) Mr. Sinha Roy also submits that the Court cannot appoint a Receiver when it has not been prayed for. If such prayer is not made and the Court has passed an order without jurisdiction the Court should only confine to the case of attachment before the Judgment. (13.) Having heard the respective contentions of the counsel for the parties and while dealing with the learned objections regarding appointment of Receiver I am of the view that power of the Court for appointing a Receiver is not exercised only when at is prayed for by the parties. The language of the Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is very clear that when it is just fit and proper. It is the perception and discretion of the Court itself when it would be just and proper. The parties concerned can also place before the Court the materials and averment to obtain order. Allegations were made before the Court and at the ad interim stage the Court thought it just and proper to appoint a Receiver over the property. The conduct of the defendant is also very doubtful as inspite of service of notice he did not appear at the first instance nor did he allow the Court Officer to discharge his duty until the police came forward to assist in terms of the Courts order. Its conduct suggests non-cooperation and stifling, The Appeal Court did not interfere with this order. It is true that it was at the ad interim stage but it should not be overlooked because before the Appeal Court the defendant through his director gave undertaking to deposit the sum of Rs.8 Lakhs and odd. It is the defendant who invited by the Appeal Court of its own to pass the said order recording undertaking. It is true that it was at the ad interim stage but it should not be overlooked because before the Appeal Court the defendant through his director gave undertaking to deposit the sum of Rs.8 Lakhs and odd. It is the defendant who invited by the Appeal Court of its own to pass the said order recording undertaking. In view of such undertaking the Appeal Court passed the aforesaid order quoted above. (14.) This has not been discharged. Therefore, the statement and averment made in the petition for attachment before the Judgment is sufficiently substantiated by the omission and conduct of the defendant subsequently. What more evidence is required when a particular party does not obey the Courts order nor discharges its undertaking and exposes itself to the proceedings of contempt, to substantiate case of attachment before Judgment. (15.) In my view the Appeal Courts order has reached its finality as it was not passed on adjudication at the interlocutory stage but on the invitation and suggestion and/or consent of the defendant the said order was passed. (16.) It is needless to mention that the aforesaid Appeal Courts order has not been obeyed by any means. I do not find any reason nor I have any authority and power to pass any order other than to ask the parties to carry out the Appeal Courts order. (17.) As far as examining the title of the third party concerned I am of the view prima facie that the applicant company is the alter ego of the defendant company and really run by the same group of persons. Moreover, it is an admitted position that the defendant is the tenant of the said third party applicant and there is no case nor any insinuation that the tenancy has been surrendered nor any eviction decree has been obtained, as such for the time being the said third party applicant cannot get the possession of the property now. Therefore, until and unless the Appeal Courts order is carried out Receiver will remain in possession. The Receiver will go for weekly visit with the help of the police and police will render all assistance if called for by the Receiver. The decisions cited by Mr. Sinha Roy in this matter and the law laid down therein do not help his client any manner, rather the same support the plaintiff/petitioner herein. The Receiver will go for weekly visit with the help of the police and police will render all assistance if called for by the Receiver. The decisions cited by Mr. Sinha Roy in this matter and the law laid down therein do not help his client any manner, rather the same support the plaintiff/petitioner herein. Thus the matter is disposed of. Matter disposed of