Judgment :- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the fair and decretal order, dated 04.09.2014, passed in I.A.No.461 of 2014 in O.S.No.124 of 2014, on the file of V Additional District Court, Madurai. 2. The appellant is the second defendant in O.S.No.124 of 2014 and second respondent in I.A.No.461 of 2014 on the file of V Additional District Court, Madurai. The first respondent filed the suit for recovery of money due and payable by the second respondent in the business transaction. The appellant is the mother of the second respondent and according to the first respondent, she guaranteed due repayment by her son, the second respondent herein. She deposited the title deeds relating to her property and created an equitable mortgage. However, the second respondent and the appellant did not pay the amounts due to the first respondent. Therefore, the first respondent has filed a suit for recovery of money. Along with the suit, he has filed an application in I.A.No.461 of 2014, for a direction to the second respondent and the appellant, to furnish security to the tune of Rs.12,00,000/-. Notices were ordered to the second respondent and the appellant to furnish security, to the tune of Rs.12,00,000/-, with a condition that in the event of failure to furnish security, an order of attachment before the Judgment would be passed. The second respondent and the appellant did not furnish any security. Therefore, on 20.08.2014, ad-interim attachment was ordered. 3. The second respondent filed counter affidavit denying his liability to pay a sum of Rs.11,06,556.54, as claimed by the first respondent in the suit. He has stated that he filed O.S.No.271 of 2013 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai, against the first respondent for permanent injunction. In the said suit, the first respondent filed a written statement, to the effect that a sum of Rs.4,07,031/- is only due and payable by the second respondent. Suppressing these facts, the first respondent has filed the suit for recovery of money to the tune of Rs.11,06,556.54 and also has filed the application for attachment before Judgment. 4. The appellant in her counter, denied having guaranteed due repayment of amount due and payable by the second respondent herein. She also denied that she had created equitable mortgage, by depositing the title deeds relating to the petition property. 4. The appellant in her counter, denied having guaranteed due repayment of amount due and payable by the second respondent herein. She also denied that she had created equitable mortgage, by depositing the title deeds relating to the petition property. She has also stated that she has no intention to alienate the property sought to be attached to any third party, without permission of the Court. 5. The learned V Additional District Judge, Madurai, without considering the undertaking given by the appellant/petitioner, ordered attachment before judgment. The learned Judge did not consider whether the first respondent proved his contention that the appellant is going to alienate the property, in order to defeat and delay the interest of the first respondent in realizing the amounts due to him. Against the order of attachment, the appellant has come out with this appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Court below ordered furnishing security, ignoring the settled position of law. The learned Judge failed to consider the fact that the appellant is not connected with the business transaction with the respondents and that she did not deposit the title deeds, to create equitable mortgage as security, for due repayment of the amount due and payable by the second respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the appellant has given an undertaking that she will not alienate the property in question, without the permission of the Court. The lower Court failed to consider the various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in dealing with an application filed for furnishing security. 7. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the following Judgments: (i) AIR 2000 MADRAS 213 [Renox Commercials Ltd., Vs. Inventa Technologies Pvt. Ltd.], wherein in paragraphs 25, 30 and 31, it has been held as follows: "25. Therefore, the jurisdiction of this Court to order attachment before judgment arises only when it is satisfied by the affidavit, supported by the particulars that the defendant is about to dispose of the whole, or any part of his property with the intention to obstruct or delay the execution of the decree that may be passed against him. Therefore, the jurisdiction of this Court to order attachment before judgment arises only when it is satisfied by the affidavit, supported by the particulars that the defendant is about to dispose of the whole, or any part of his property with the intention to obstruct or delay the execution of the decree that may be passed against him. Hence, the essential requirement for an order of attachment before judgment is the mala fide intention and the conduct of the defendant in disposing of or about to dispose of his property with the dishonest intention of defeating or delaying the decree that may be passed in the suit. 30. As indicated above, the applicant/ plaintiff should clearly establish two essential requisites. They are :-- (i) the defendant is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property; (ii) that the said disposal is being done with an intention to obstruct or delay the execution of the decree that may be passed against him. 31. Thus, in this case, the sine qua non for an order of attachment before judgment, namely, the mala fide intention and the conduct of the defendant in disposing of or about to dispose of his property with the dishonest intention of defeating or delaying the decree that may be passed in the suit, is conspicuously absent." (ii) 2014 (3) CTC 792 [M.Padmini Vs. M.Anandhan], wherein in paragraph 13, it has been held as follows:- "13. It is a trite proposition of law that merely making a bald allegation that the plaintiff is given to understand that the Defendant is going to sell the property through real estate agents may not be sufficient and there must a specific averment or allegation made. In the absence of any specific allegation it is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by this Court that extraordinary remedy should not be granted. It is true that the Court is vested with powers to exercise power under Order 38, Rule 5, C.P.C. But, it remains to be stated that if it is a fit case, it should be exercised. It is an extraordinary power and such power should not be exercised mechanically. The Courts have held that it must be used strictly in accordance with the rules. It is an extraordinary power and such power should not be exercised mechanically. The Courts have held that it must be used strictly in accordance with the rules. The purpose of Order 38, Rule 5, is not to convert an unsecured debt into a secured debt." (iii) 2014 (2) LW 372 [R.Ramesh Vs. R.Raveender], wherein in paragraph 16, it has been held as follows: "16.This court is of the opinion that averments in the affidavit does not satisfy the requirements of Order XXXVIII Rule 5. The respondent has not given any particulars in the affidavit whatsoever regarding the purported alienation. The Trial court has totally failed to consider that in view of the mortgage, the appellant could not alienate the property. The Trial court also failed to see that the property was mortgaged even prior to the date of alleged transaction with the plaintiff. There is not even a finding by the Trial court regarding any attempt or proposal by the appellant to alienate the property to defeat the interest of the respondent. There cannot be any mechanical attachment even if security is not furnished. Therefore, the order of the Trial court is totally devoid of merits and is not in accordance with the law. Hence the order of the Trial Court in I.A No 203/13 in O.S No 44/13 is hereby set aside. However considering the facts and circumstances, the appellant shall not create further mortgages and ensure that status quo is maintained with regard to the property pending the suit. The order of status quo will not prevent the appellant from discharging the loan with the bank. Considering the fact that the lis is still at large before the Trial court, the Learned Judge is directed 22 to dispose the suit within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order." (iv) 1984 MLJ 148 [N.Pappammal Vs. L.Chidambaram], wherein in paragraph 6, it has been held as follows: "6. ...... It is incumbent that the plaintiff should state precisely the grounds on which the belief or apprehensions are entertained that the defendant is likely to dispose of or remove the property. It may even be necessary in some cases to give the source of information and belief. L.Chidambaram], wherein in paragraph 6, it has been held as follows: "6. ...... It is incumbent that the plaintiff should state precisely the grounds on which the belief or apprehensions are entertained that the defendant is likely to dispose of or remove the property. It may even be necessary in some cases to give the source of information and belief. A mere mechanical repetition of the provisions in the Code or the language therein without any basic strata of truth underlying the allegation or vague and general allegations that the defendant is about to dispose of the property or remove it beyond the jurisdiction of the Court totally unsupported by particulars would not be sufficient compliance with the first part of order 38, Rule 5 (1), Civil Procedure Code." 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the lower Court has considered all the materials on record, in proper perspective and finding that the second respondent and the appellant did not furnish any security, granted an interim order of attachment. Subsequently, after considering the pleadings and arguments, the interim order was made absolute. The said order is valid and legal and there is no reason to interfere with the said order. 9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered the arguments put forth by them and carefully perused the materials on record. 10. It is well settled now that attachment before Judgment cannot be granted on vague and bald allegations that the defendants/respondents are trying to alienate the property with an intention to defeat and delay the interest of the plaintiff/petitioner. The plaintiff/petitioner, who seek an order of attachment before judgment, must make specific allegation and the Courts must be satisfied that the interest of such party will be defeated, unless the order of attachment is ordered. The Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. 11. The first respondent has made vague and bald allegations that the appellant is trying to alienate the property in question. The appellant in the counter affidavit, has stated that she has no intention to alienate the property. The Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. 11. The first respondent has made vague and bald allegations that the appellant is trying to alienate the property in question. The appellant in the counter affidavit, has stated that she has no intention to alienate the property. The averment in this regard is extracted hereunder:- "This defendant is ready to undertake that she will not alienate the property to any 3rd party without the permission of this Honourable Court and she express her willingness to indemnify the plaintiff in case of any alienation made in the property." 12. The lower Court took note of this averment in the counter affidavit, but did not give any reason, for not accepting the same. 13. Today, the appellant has filed an affidavit, undertaking that she will not alienate the property pending disposal of O.S.No.124 of 2014. The said affidavit of undertaking is recorded. Paragraph 3 of the affidavit is extracted as hereunder: “3. I submit that I am the owner of the plaint schedule property from the year 1974 and I am not have any intention at all to alienate the property and I am giving the following undertaking before this Hon'ble Court. “I hereby undertake that I will not alienate or encumber the property to any third parties till the disposal of the original suit.”” 14. For the reasons stated above, the judgment and decree, dated 04.09.2014, made in I.A.No.461 of 2014 in O.S.No.124 of 2014, is set aside. The learned counsel for both the parties submitted that the trial has commenced and the suit is posted for the cross-examination of PW.1. In the facts and circumstances, the learned V Additional District Judge, Madurai, is directed to complete the trial and dispose of the suit, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. 15. With the above direction, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.