JUDGMENT : Indrajit Mahanty, J. - In the present writ application the Plaintiff/petitioner-Alstom Projects India Limited has sought to challenge the order dated 10.8.2006 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Rourkela in Misc. Case No. 20 of 2005 arising out of C.S. No. 104/60/04? 05 by which the petition under Order 38 Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC for directing the Defendant/opposite party-Otto India Private Limited not to deal with both immoveable and movable properties as described in Schedules-A, B and C of the petition and calling upon the opposite party-Company to furnish security against the claim of the Petitioner was partly allowed. 2. Mr. G. Mukherji, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Petitioner-Company had entered into a contract with opposite party? Company on 18.07.2001 to fabricate 8500 M.T. of steel. It is further submitted that during the period from 4.09.2001 to 27.06.2003, the Plaintiff/petitioner-Company supplied 4739 M.T. of steel. Though 3342 M.T. of steel was duly fabricated and handed over to the Plaintiff/petitioner and 194 M.T. of steel out of the said quantity was treated to be scrap, the balance quantity of steel to the extent of 1203 M.T. remained unaccounted for. Since the Defendant/opposite party? Company made inordinate delay in execution of the contract and it did not furnish any account regarding the aforesaid materials, the Plaintiff/petitioner-Company vide its letter dated 19.4.2004 terminated the contract, and called upon the Defendant/opposite party-Company to return the materials supplied to it. As the said request of the Plaintiff/petitioner was not acted upon, an original suit was flied by the Plaintiff/petitioner on 14.07.2004 before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rourkela for recovery of the said materials or in the alternative to recover the cost of thereof amounting to Rs. 4,07,60,000 from the Defendant/opposite party. 3. The present Petitioner also filed an application for injunction being No. C.M.A. No. 85 of 2004, which was rejected on 24.12.2004. Against the said order of rejection F.A.O. No. 35 of 2005 was filed by the Petitioner before this Court on 27.01.2005. In the said F.A.O., this Court passed an interim order dated 20.5.2005 directing the local police to guard the goods. Pursuant to the further directions of this Court, on 20.7.2005 the Petitioner along with the police entered into the premises of the opposite party-Company and found that the raw materials, machineries etc. In the said F.A.O., this Court passed an interim order dated 20.5.2005 directing the local police to guard the goods. Pursuant to the further directions of this Court, on 20.7.2005 the Petitioner along with the police entered into the premises of the opposite party-Company and found that the raw materials, machineries etc. including a part of the roof of the factory shed had been removed. In view of such state of affairs the F.A.O. was disposed of as infructuous and liberty was granted to the Plaintiff/petitioner-Company to file an application for attachment. 4. Consequent upon such disposal of the F.A.O. the Plaintiff/petitioner filed Misc. Case No. 20 of 2005 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rourkela under Order 38, Rule-5 read with Section 151, CPC with a prayer to call upon that the Defendant/opposite party-Company to furnish security against the claim of the Plaintiff/petitioner-Company in the suit and in case the Defendant/opposite party failed to do so, the properties of the opposite party? Company situated at Kalunga in Orissa and Kolkata, West Bengal and other places described in Schedules-A and Schedule-B and respectively may be attached. The said application came to be disposed of by the learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Rourkela by order dated 10.8.2006 holding as follows: By invoking the inherent power I direct that the opposite party shall not deal with both immoveable and moveable properties as described in the Schedules A, B and C of this petition, in any manner until further order. Seeking modification of the impugned order this writ petition has been filed. 5. Mr. Mukherji, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff/petitioner? Company submitted that the new shareholders of the opposite party? Company have sought to siphon off both immoveable and movable assets of the opposite arty-Company by using or creating fictitious companies and making fictitious transactions of purchase of shares of loss making companies at huge premium. Apart from that, collusive suit has been filed at Kolkota in respect of the rented premises of the opposite party? Company. In this background Mr. Mukherji submitted that the new shareholders of the opposite party-Company with the intention either to siphon off the funds of the opposite party-Company and/or to dispose of the fixed assets of the company in order to avoid the liability of the opposite party-Company. Mr. Company. In this background Mr. Mukherji submitted that the new shareholders of the opposite party-Company with the intention either to siphon off the funds of the opposite party-Company and/or to dispose of the fixed assets of the company in order to avoid the liability of the opposite party-Company. Mr. Mukherji further submitted that the opposite party-Company had no right to deal with the materials (steel) of the Petitioner-Company other than the manner in which agreed between the parties and the fictitious sale transactions in respect of the entire property have been made to evade/avoid a possible decree in the pending suit. 6.(SIC) Mr. S.D. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite party-Company on the other hand submitted that the impugned order clearly protects the interest of the Plaintiff-petitioner and all the allegations made against the opposite party-Company shareholders are baseless, particularly since the alleged transactions were made prior to any order that was passed by the Civil Court. Mr. Das further submitted that apart from other assets the opposite party-Company has huge assets at Kalunga and Sundargarh. But those assets remain under charge of various financial institutions for which DRT proceedings are pending. Mr. Das has also submitted that the opposite party-Company has no intention to evade the outcome of the suit and in the present writ application the Petitioner has virtually no grievance against the impugned order since its interest has been suitably protected. 7. Mr. Mukherji on the other hand submitted that the statement that the properties of the opposite party-Company remain under the charge of financial institutions and Bank is incorrect since those debts have already been settled and therefore, the charge can no longer be said to be in operation. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the Plaintiff/petitioner-Company has raised a claim against the opposite party-Company for a sum of Rs. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the Plaintiff/petitioner-Company has raised a claim against the opposite party-Company for a sum of Rs. 4,07,60,000 with interest which is the subject matter of the suit, I am of the view that the interest of justice would be best served in modifying the order passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Rourkela to the extent of injuncting the opposite companies from dealing with both movable and immovable properties as described in Schedules-A, Band C of the petition under Order 38, Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC and further restraining the opposite party from creating any encumbrance in respect of the said properties till disposal of the C.S. No. 104/60/04-06 pending before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rourkela. Further I direct that the suit be taken up for hearing expeditiously and the same shall be disposed of within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.