JUDGMENT : 1. Three applications are before this Court. The application (GA No.3099 of 2014) is the plaintiff’s application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for attachment before judgment. The other two applications are filed by the defendants. The application (GA No.3821 of 2014) is made by them for vacation of the interim order obtained by the plaintiff. The other application (GA No.3745 of 2015) refers to urgent circumstances under which the applicant/defendants be permitted to withdraw Rs.57 lakhs and odd lying in their bank account. 2. In the application taken out by the plaintiff (GA No.3099 of 2014), on 26th September 2014, this Court directed service of the application upon the defendants. It is not the defendants’ case that they did not receive the papers. But in paragraph 5 of their above application made in 2014 they used some expressions like “miscommunication” and “bona fide mistake” as a reason for not being able to appear in Court. In their absence on 3rd November, 2014 an order was passed in the Order XXXVIII Rule 5 application restraining them from operating their bank account without a credit balance of Rs.9,42,59,029.28/-. This account never had a balance even close to this. It has about Rs.57 lakhs in it, now. 3. An application was made by the defendants (GA No.3822 of 2014) for revocation of leave obtained by the plaintiff under clause 12 of the Letters Patent to institute the suit. On 15th December, 2014 it was dismissed by Mr. Justice Soumen Sen. 4. The application (GA No.3821 of 2014) was taken out by the defendants on 5th December 2014 followed by a latter application (GA No.3745 of 2015) on or about 1st December 2015. No substantive order was passed at the interim stage in either of these applications. The Court simply directed filing of affidavits. Affidavits are complete. 5. In the meantime, the plaintiff has taken all the steps to get the suit ready for trial. In fact, trial of the suit commenced before Mr. Justice Arijit Banerjee in or about December, 2015. 6. Now, the suit and the applications are before me. 7. Mr. Bose appearing for them submits that there was no case on which the Court could have passed an order of attachment. 8. I have gone through the pleadings made in the application for attachment before judgment. Justice Arijit Banerjee in or about December, 2015. 6. Now, the suit and the applications are before me. 7. Mr. Bose appearing for them submits that there was no case on which the Court could have passed an order of attachment. 8. I have gone through the pleadings made in the application for attachment before judgment. There is no doubt that in paragraphs 22, 23 and 24 of the petition very bald and vague allegations have been made that the defendants are indulging in acts of insolvency. 9. If this was the Court trying the Order XXXVIII Rule 5 application at the threshold and it was made aware of the pleadings, there was no question of passing any order of attachment. The law is well settled that to entitle a plaintiff to get an order of attachment against the defendant, the acts of insolvency of the defendant has to be pleaded and proved in some detail. Otherwise, the plaintiff has to first obtain a decree and then apply for attachment, sale etc. to realize it. 10. The problem in this case is elsewhere. There is no dispute whatsoever that the defendants had notice of the attachment before judgment application. On an examination of Order XXXIX Rule 4 (Second Proviso) of the Code of Civil Procedure it is quite clear that when the defendant had notice of the plaintiff’s application and did not appear, he could not ordinarily obtain discharge or variation of the interim order. He had to show amongst other things, change of circumstances or undue hardship. 11. There is no change of circumstances. But Mr. Bose submits that considerable hardship has been caused to his client by operation of this attachment order. 12. It is an admitted position that in the attached bank account there is only Rs.57 lakhs and odd. So the attachment order is for all practical purposes confined to this amount. 13. This order of attachment is causing hardship to the defendants because their account has been frozen, without any case made out by the plaintiff. However, this order of attachment has been operative for a period of nearly two years. The suit is ready for trial. The defendants have not been able to properly explain why they could not attend the hearing when the order of attachment was passed. 14. However, this order of attachment has been operative for a period of nearly two years. The suit is ready for trial. The defendants have not been able to properly explain why they could not attend the hearing when the order of attachment was passed. 14. Considering all those circumstances and the balance of convenience, I am inclined to set aside this order of attachment only if the defendants furnish a bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Registrar, High Court, Original Side, of an amount of Rs.57 lakhs. The bank guarantee should have an automatic renewable clause and should be in favour of the Registrar, High Court, Original Side. Upon furnishing of this bank guarantee, the interim order dated 3rd November, 2014 would cease to be operative. 15. Set down the suit for trial on and from 1st August, 2016. All points raised in the above applications but not decided may be decided at the time of trial of the suit. 16. Certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.