Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. 1. In course of hearing of this appeal, Mr. Chatterjee, learned senior advocate, appearing for the respondent submits that the application under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiffs was never served upon his client. 2. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate, appearing for the appellants disputes such contention of Mr. Chatterjee. He has drawn our attention to the impugned order wherein it was recorded that as per the report of the postal department, the notice was returned as 'not claimed'. 3. From the lower court's record, we find that there are two envelopes which were sent to the respondent at his Kolkata address. 4. To resolve the dispute as to whether any notice relating to this application under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure was ever tendered to the respondent or not, we direct our officer concerned to open the envelope available in the lower court's record to verify as to whether the application under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure was ever tendered to the respondent or not. 5. Accordingly, one of such envelope which is identified by Mr. Banerjee, is unwrapped in court. The contents of the said envelope were taken out from the lower court's record. 6. On perusal of the said document, we find that the copy of the application under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure was sent for effecting service upon the defendant/respondent by speed post with A/d., and since the addressee did not claim such service, the postal envelope came back with the postal remark 'unclaimed'. 7. As such, we do not find any illegality in the findings of the learned Trial Court where it was recorded that such service was not claimed by the addressee, as per the postal report. 8. We record our satisfaction about the service of such notice relating to the plaintiffs' said application under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure upon the defendant. 9. This First Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against an order being no. 11 dated 30th September, 2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 4th Court at Alipore, in Money Suit No. 16027 of 2013 at the instance of the plaintiffs/appellants. 10. 9. This First Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against an order being no. 11 dated 30th September, 2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 4th Court at Alipore, in Money Suit No. 16027 of 2013 at the instance of the plaintiffs/appellants. 10. By the impugned order, the plaintiffs' prayer for attachment of two immovable properties, belonging to the defendant, before judgment was rejected by the learned Trial Judge ex-parte. Challenging the legality of the said order, the plaintiffs have filed this appeal. 11. Let us now consider the merit of the appeal in the facts of the present case. 12. While dismissing the appeal, the learned Trial Judge rejected the plaintiffs' said application for attachment before judgment by totally a non-speaking order. The learned Trial Judge simply said that the court did not find any cogent ground to allow the prayer of the plaintiffs as per the petition under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The reason which prompted the court to come to such conclusion has not been disclosed by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned order. 13. We have already indicated above that the application for attachment before judgment was rejected by the learned Trial Judge ex-parte. Inspite of service of summons, the defendant has not come forward to contest the said suit. Though the papers relating to the application for attachment before judgment was served upon the defendant, he did not come forward to contest the plaintiffs' said application for attachment before judgment. As such, we have no hesitation to hold that the allegation made by the plaintiffs in the said application remains uncontroverted. 14. In this background, we will have to ascertain from the pleadings made out by the plaintiffs in the said application as to whether the plaintiffs have succeeded in making out a case for passing an order for attachment before judgment in the instant case. 15. On perusal of the said application we find that the plaintiffs stated therein that the plaintiff had a commercial transaction with the defendant. 15. On perusal of the said application we find that the plaintiffs stated therein that the plaintiff had a commercial transaction with the defendant. It was also stated therein that since the defendant defaulted in payment of the plaintiffs' dues, a sum of Rs.48,27,772/- is due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiffs on account of the price of the goods sold and delivered and also for failure to repay the business loan together with interest. It is also alleged by the appellants that the petitioners have come to learn that the opposite party has shifted from his last known address of Kolkata. It is also stated in the said application that the appellants/petitioners have come to learn from reliable source that the defendant/opposite party has removed himself and his family to Kanpur and he has recently come to Kolkata with the object of selling and/or disposing of his two immovable properties in Kolkata so that he would be in a position to leave Kolkata permanently with the sale proceeds by defrauding his creditors. It is also stated therein that there is every possibility of passing a decree in favour of the appellants/ petitioners and the opposite party with an intent to obstruct or delay to execute the decree that may be passed against him in the instant suit is about to dispose of whole of his properties in Kolkata. It is also stated therein that if the defendant/respondent succeeds in disposing of those two immovable properties and leave the jurisdiction of the learned court with the sale proceeds thereof, the appellants/petitioners would not be in a position to execute the ultimate decree that may be passed in the instant suit and the same shall be a mere paper decree in the hands of the petitioners. 16. Considering this averment made in this application which still remains uncontroverted from the end of the defendant, we have reason to hold that all the basic ingredients for passing an order for attachment before judgment are satisfied in the instant case. 17. 16. Considering this averment made in this application which still remains uncontroverted from the end of the defendant, we have reason to hold that all the basic ingredients for passing an order for attachment before judgment are satisfied in the instant case. 17. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and the application under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure by attaching the immovable properties, as mentioned in the schedule of the said application, conditionally for a period of two weeks, and if in the mean time the defendant/respondent put in an amount equivalent to the claim of the plaintiffs in the suit with the learned court below, the conditional attachment order passed hereinabove will stand automatically lifted. 18. Needless to mention here that in default of put in the security money in terms of our above order, the order of attachment will continue till the disposal of the suit. 19. The appeal is, thus, allowed. 20. Let it be recorded that as per the direction of the Court, the copy of the application for attachment before judgment which was taken out from the sealed postal envelope has been again kept in the said postal envelope and tagged with the lower court's record. 21. Let the lower court's record be sent back to the learned court below by the special messenger at the cost of the appellants and such cost will be deposited within a week.a