JUDGMENT : 1. The appeal is as bad as they come. The appellant herein has, on one pretext or the other, thwarted the first respondent plaintiff from obtaining return of its containers for more than six years. 2. An initial interlocutory order was made in the suit for the 256 containers, which form the subject-matter of the suit, to be destuffed and the containers returned to the plaintiff; but such order could not be worked out. The principal problem that arose was that the freight container station objected to the goods being destuffed without such station being paid its dues for the long occupation of a portion of the station by the containers. It also appears that the customs authorities have a substantial claim in respect of the goods. 3. By the order impugned dated September 21, 2017, the Court directed the containers to be destuffed and auctioned by the customs authorities and the sale proceeds kept in deposit for the manner of appropriation thereof to be adjudicated on at a later stage. The containers were directed to be returned to the plaintiff. 4. The appellant here has come riding on the crutches of its bankers to suggest that the goods are charged with the consortium of banks that have the first charge in respect thereof and the trial Court erred in allowing the customs authorities to conduct the auction or to keep the money deposited without reference to the appellant’s bankers. The other ground urged is that the order impugned may be beyond the scope of the suit: both in it not specifying the return of the containers to be limited to the 256 referred to in the plaint; and, to the sale being conducted which could not have been contemplated in the plaint. 5. It also appears from the order impugned that the principal submission on behalf of the appellant before the trial Court was that the appellant was attempting to have its debts restructured by its bankers and if the goods were sold, a substantial security furnished to the bankers would be lost to the appellant. 6. None of the grounds urged by the appellant are of any relevance, save that the extent of the order impugned must be limited to the number of containers referred to in the plaint and it cannot apply to the other containers, if any. 6. None of the grounds urged by the appellant are of any relevance, save that the extent of the order impugned must be limited to the number of containers referred to in the plaint and it cannot apply to the other containers, if any. The order impugned has not decided whether the customs authorities have a paramount charge or whether a part of the consideration or the entirety thereof may be obtained by the bankers who have granted credit facilities to the appellant and enjoy a first charge over the goods contained in the containers. The customs authorities have been assigned the role that is ordinarily required of a receiver to conduct the sale and merely deposit the proceeds with a nationalised bank. 7. The UCO Bank is represented upon notice of the present proceedings being given, without leave of Court, by the appellant to such non-party. UCO Bank is only desirous of making some quick profit as would be evident from its submission that the deposit should be made with such bank and with no other. 8. There is nothing of substance in the appeal. The plaintiff was entitled to the return of its containers prior to the institution of the suit and the order only facilitates the return of the 256 containers to the plaintiff. Indeed, the appellant cannot be seen to be a person aggrieved by the order since no right of the appellant has been affected thereby. The appellant has used the excuse of customs duties and banker’s charges only to thwart the return of the containers for a substantial period of time. Such mala fide exercise has been appropriately arrested by the order impugned. 9. Accordingly, APO No. 473 of 2017 and GA No. 3257 of 2017 are disposed of without interfering with the order impugned dated September 21, 2017, save recording that such order will apply to the 256 containers which are the subject-matter of the suit. The appellant will pay the first respondent plaintiff costs assessed at Rs.50,000/-. 10. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.