Judgment Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Having heard Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Nikhil Singhal, Advocate, for the appellant/applicant Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Mr. S.K. Jain, Sr. Advocate, for the respondent no. 1 Rajendra Kumar Goyal and Mr. M.S. Tyagi, Advocate, on behalf of respondent no. 2 Mr. Naresh Kumar, all that the Court could gather from the rival submissions of the learned Counsel that there was a property, subject matter of the Original Suit No. 62/2009, which was filed by the plaintiff Mr. Rajesh Kumar against Rajedra Kumar Goyal seeking specific performance of an agreement dated 14.8.2007. That suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Haridwar on 10.9.2012. Soon after the dismissal of such suit, Mr. Rajendra Kumar Goyal transferred the property, in question, in favour of respondent no. 2 Mr. Naresh Kumar on 21.9.2012. The defeated plaintiff filed an appeal on 9.10.2012 before the High Court, wherein the order was passed on the next day prohibiting Rajendra Kumar Goyal not to create any third party interest in the said property. But Mr. Goyal had already transferred the same. Eventually, the transferee Mr. Naresh Kumar was impleaded as a respondent on 27.2.2013 and similar prohibitory injunction was also passed against him to the effect that he will not create any third party interest. But Mr. Naresh Kumar, in utter disregard of the injunction against him, sold the portions of the property to several persons. So, on the application moved by the appellant Rajesh Kumar, the Court third time passed the injunction on 2.7.2013 restraining Mr. Naresh Kumar not to create any third party interest. Even though Naresh Kumar did not change his attitude and continued to create the third party interest and executed sale deeds of the property, which is perhaps a big land. In these circumstances, the appellant has moved the application (CLMA 9905/2014) under Order 38 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. praying to attach the said property, in question, in order to avoid any further multiplicity of the litigation. Learned Counsel Mr. M.S. Tyagi has sought time to file the objections against the aforesaid application no. 9905/2014. But the Court feels that under the guise of asking the time for filing objections against this application and taking note of the gross objectionable conduct on the part of the respondent no. Learned Counsel Mr. M.S. Tyagi has sought time to file the objections against the aforesaid application no. 9905/2014. But the Court feels that under the guise of asking the time for filing objections against this application and taking note of the gross objectionable conduct on the part of the respondent no. 2, this Court exercises the power under Order 38 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. and attaches the entire property, which is the subject matter of this appeal. Objection against this application no. 9905/2014 can be filed within three weeks. Then, this application will be heard further on merits, and if the Court finds the attachment order unjustified, it may be vacated after hearing both the parties. Collector, Haridwar is directed to ensure that the property in question (subject matter of the suit/litigation under this appeal) shall remain attached. Compliance of the order of this Court be ensured by all means whatsoever. List after three weeks. Meanwhile, issue fresh notice to respondent no. 3. Steps be taken within a week.