JUDGMENT : T.V. Anilkumar, J. An amount of Rs.10,00,0000/- (Rupees one crore only) alleged to be maintained by the appellant-Galgotias University in the State of Uttar Pradesh in its account with Union Bank of India, Noida main branch was attached before the judgment in O.S.No.84/2018 by the learned Sub Judge, Ernakulam through the impugned order passed on 07.02.2019 and correctness of the same is challenged in this appeal before us. 2. The appellant-first defendant in the suit is a University established in the State of Uttar Pradesh under Galgotias University Act, 2011 and the defendants 2 and 3 are the officials in charge of the institution. 3. The sole respondent in the appeal who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.84/2018 is a public limited company engaged in the field of publishing news paper as well as various periodicals across the country and abroad for the past several years having one of its publishing centres at Ernakulam within the territorial jurisdiction of Sub Court, Ernakulam. 4. The case set up by the respondent/plaintiff in O.S.No.84/2018 is that the appellant's officials approached the respondent company seeking to publish advertisements for the University and educational courses conducted by it in the periodicals of the respondent for a definite period of time. On 31.03.2014, the second defendant, Chancellor of the appellant-University placed a request with the respondent seeking to issue advertisements in weekly periodicals called 'The Week' in IFC pages for a period commencing from 13.04.2014 to 29.06.2014 at the rates specified in the letter. The letter was accepted and according to the respondent, it amounted to a concluded contract between the parties. On 17.06.2014 also, a similar letter was received from the appellant requesting to publish advertisements in weekly periodicals titled as 'The Week', 'Smart life' and 'The Man' for a period commencing from 06.07.2014 to 01.12.2014 in IFC pages and in the manner indicated in the letter and at the rates specified. This letter too was accepted by the respondent and according to it, a concluded contract came into existence as in the case of earlier transactions. 5. According to the respondent, the specific advertisement materials approved by the appellant were timely published in the periodicals as demanded right from 13.04.2014 to 01.10.2014. This letter too was accepted by the respondent and according to it, a concluded contract came into existence as in the case of earlier transactions. 5. According to the respondent, the specific advertisement materials approved by the appellant were timely published in the periodicals as demanded right from 13.04.2014 to 01.10.2014. Respondent says that when invoices were raised claiming advertisement charges incurred for the respective periods, the appellant adopted a very lethargic attitude towards discharging the liability and kept the charges in arrears without any reason. However, after repeated follow ups and reminders, the respondent managed to obtain a cheque dated 30.06.2015 from the appellant for an amount of Rs.13,23,000/- in partial discharge of liability. The cheque was encashed and respondent adjusted the amount towards the first three transactions as per invoices dated 13.04.2014, 20.04.2014 and 27.04.2014. After the issue of cheque no more payments were made. The respondent has quantified the unpaid advertisement charges to the tune of Rs.78,65,000/- as per the invoices and adding TDS also, total liability of the appellant was fixed as Rs.79,86,000/-. A lawyer's notice was sent on 30.06.2016 to appellant demanding discharge of its liability and since the attempt in that respect did not succeed, respondent filed O.S.No.84/2018 before Sub Court, Ernakulam on 12.04.2018 seeking recovery of an amount of Rs. 79,86,000/- with 12% interest per annum from the appellant/University and the officials in charge of it. 6. Along with the suit, the respondent filed I.A. 1631/2018 under Order 38 Rule 5 and Order 21 Rule 46 read with and Section 151 of the CPC seeking an order of attachment before judgment for an amount of Rs.1,18,38,250/- alleged to be kept in the current account of the appellant in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Noozapur Branch in U.P. An interim order of attachment was issued by the court below on the date of suit itself and later the respondent on coming to know that the said account was not being maintained by the appellant, sought to modify the interim order substituting Union Bank of India, Noida main branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce alleging that the appellant was holding requisite amount in the account of the said Bank. The court below allowed I.A. No.1933/2018 passing interim order attaching the account of the appellant being maintained in the above Union Bank of India, Noida main Branch after modifying the earlier interim order of attachment. 7. The court below allowed I.A. No.1933/2018 passing interim order attaching the account of the appellant being maintained in the above Union Bank of India, Noida main Branch after modifying the earlier interim order of attachment. 7. The respondent alleged in I.A. 1631/2018 that the appellant with a view to defraud the company and defeat execution of the decree that may be passed against the appellant in the suit, was resorting to secret move to divert the money in deposit in its Bank and remove the same from the jurisdiction of the court. The source of this information was said to have been received on a definite date from one of the staff members of the appellant University. 8. The appellant filed counter affidavit denying its liability to the respondent contending that many material facts were suppressed by the respondent with a view to obtaining an order of attachment from the court. The appellant did not dispute having issued letters dated 31.3.2014 and 17.6.2014 demanding to publish its advertisements in the periodicals owned and circulated by the respondent. According to the appellant-University, those letters were only mere business offers which were not intended to result in concluded contracts. It was contended that there was specific understanding with the respondent that publication of advertisements as per the schedule given in the two letters should be made only after the respondent obtaining prior approval from the appellant. Accordingly, approval for publication was given by the appellant only with respect to three advertisements dated 13.4.2014, 20.4.2014 and 27.4.2014. According to the appellant, it is not liable for the charges claimed for publication of the advertisements effected from 4.5.2014 to 1.10.2014 since the publication was issued without obtaining previous approval and there were no concluded contracts in respect of those transactions. The liability for invoices dated since 4.5.2014 to 1.10.2014 quantified as Rs.78,50,000/- cannot be fastened on the appellant for the reason aforesaid and in view of that matter, the respondent failed to prove a prima facie case which was highly essential for securing an order of attachment. It was also contended that the letters dated 31.3.2014 and 17.6.2014 addressed to respondent contained separate and independent transactions and therefore recovery of advertisement charges claimed beyond the period of three years since the dates of publication are time barred. It was also contended that the letters dated 31.3.2014 and 17.6.2014 addressed to respondent contained separate and independent transactions and therefore recovery of advertisement charges claimed beyond the period of three years since the dates of publication are time barred. It was further contended that the Sub Court, Ernakulam did not have requisite territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit in as much as the cause of action arose outside its jurisdiction. Publication of the advertisements since 6.7.2014 to 1.10.2014 was, however, not disputed. 9. The appellant denied the allegation that it had any intention to divert the funds or remove the same from the jurisdictional limits of the court since it is a reputed University benefiting a large community of students across the country. According to the appellant, the University enjoys a world class status and the apprehension of the respondent is baseless. It expressed its concern that order of attachment, if allowed to be in force, would only paralyse the functioning of the Institute putting it into great loss and bring sufferings to the public also. It disowned the liability to offer any security also since the respondent has failed to establish a bonafide and a valid claim entitling respondent to a decree against the appellant. The maintainability of the petition for attachment was also questioned on the ground that attachment of cash amount kept in the bank account of appellant was not legally permissible under any provisions of the Code prior to the stage of judgment. 10. On an earlier occasion, this Court had occasion to interfere with the final order passed by the court below confirming the order of interim attachment passed on I.A. Nos.1631 and 1933/2018, in an appeal filed by the appellant as FAO 212/2018. This court sitting in appeal, by an order dated 21.12.2018 set aside the order passed by the court below on 24.10.2018 directing remittal of the matter ordering a fresh determination of the question as to whether the respondent public company succeeded in establishing a prima facie case for securing an order of attachment before judgment. 11. After the matter having been remitted in F.A.O.212/2018 the learned Sub Judge, Ernakulam passed the impugned order on I.A. Nos.1631 and 1933/2018 on 7.2.2019 attaching the account of the appellant maintained with Union Bank of India, Noida main branch for a sum of Rs.1 Crore with a few consequential directions. 11. After the matter having been remitted in F.A.O.212/2018 the learned Sub Judge, Ernakulam passed the impugned order on I.A. Nos.1631 and 1933/2018 on 7.2.2019 attaching the account of the appellant maintained with Union Bank of India, Noida main branch for a sum of Rs.1 Crore with a few consequential directions. The said order is under challenge in this appeal before us. 12. The court below examined Exts. A1 to A36 and Exts. B1 to B5 produced by parties before it and after hearing parties, it examined the main question as to whether the respondent could make out a prima facie case for passing an order of attachment before judgment. The question as to whether the court had territorial jurisdiction was also examined. Ultimately it came to the conclusion that the respondent established a prima facie case and further the suit was also brought within the period of limitation rejecting the contrary contention of the appellant. As regards objection to jurisdiction, it held that the court below had necessary territorial jurisdiction. Being convinced by the pleadings of the respondent and disturbed by the alleged conduct of appellant casting reasonable apprehension in the mind of the respondent that the latter was trying to dispose of and remove the cash kept in its account in Union Bank of India, Noida Main Branch, it held that the Bank account essentially required to be attached before judgment. All these findings of the court below are challenged in this appeal. 13. We heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides. 14. The first and foremost question is whether the respondent-company seeking order of attachment before the judgment could successfully establish that there is a reasonable chance of a decree being passed against the appellant-University. Once the respondent fails to establish a prima facie case, investigation into other conditions stipulated in Order 38 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure (herein after referred to as 'the Code' for short) as to whether appellant with ulterior motives intended to dispose of the property or remove it from local limits of the jurisdiction courts is uncalled for. In such a situation, the respondent could never claim an order of attachment before judgment against the appellant at all. In such a situation, the respondent could never claim an order of attachment before judgment against the appellant at all. Likewise, if respondent succeeds in showing a prima facie case, but fails to establish the conditions in Clauses in (a) and (b) in Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code as to the alleged intention of appellant, the law will not still favour him with an order of attachment before judgment. This is because attachment is said to be an extra ordinary power vested in the court and unless it is wielded with care and caution, it would go to the extent of leaving a very disastrous effect on the adverse party affecting his status and reputation in public. The legal principle in this regard has been laid down in Raman Tech. And Process Engg. Co. and Ors. v. Solanki Traders [MANU/SC/8119/2007]. 15. Appellant does not deny execution of Exhibits-A1 and A2 letters respectively dated 31.03.2014 and 17.06.2014 sent to the respondent-Company seeking to publish the name of the University and the educational courses conducted by it in the chosen periodicals at the rates shown in the letters for a certain period of time in two spells, viz., since 13.04.2014 to 29.06.2014 and also 06.07.2014 to 01.10.2014. 16. Appellant does not also dispute that the advertisements so proposed were published in the weekly periodicals captioned as 'The week', and 'Smart Life' from 13.04.2014 to 01.10.2014. The magazines and the advertisement bills produced before court and admitted in evidence also prove that publications were made on the specified dates of issue and also at the rates indicated in Exts.A1 and A2 letters. But appellant disputed its liability to honour the bills sent to it except for three invoices dated 13.04.2014, 20.04.2014 and 27.04.2014 charging expenses for publication on the said dates. In discharge of liability for the amount covered by the above three bills marked as Ext.A5(a) to (e), appellant issued a cheque dated 30.06.2015 for the sum of Rs.13,23,000/- and it was admittedly encashed also. The respondent admits that the amount so collected was adjusted against Ext.A5(a) to (c) invoices then and there itself. What is disputed by the appellant is its liability for Rs.78,50,000/- quantified on the basis of the rest of the advertisement bills dating from 04.05.2014 to 01.10.2014. 17. The respondent admits that the amount so collected was adjusted against Ext.A5(a) to (c) invoices then and there itself. What is disputed by the appellant is its liability for Rs.78,50,000/- quantified on the basis of the rest of the advertisement bills dating from 04.05.2014 to 01.10.2014. 17. The contention of the appellant is that Exts.A1 and A2 letters by themselves could never give rise to a concluded contract between parties as, they were intended only for exploring the business prospects. It is contended that there was understanding between parties to the effect the each publication on the specified issue dates in Exts.A1 and A2 letters could be made only after the respondent-Company obtained a previous node from the appellant-University. In other words, when no previous approval is either sought or obtained, Exts.A1 and A2 letters could never give rise to enforceable contracts. As far as the first three issues of publications made on 13.04.2014, 20.04.2014 and 27.04.2014 are concerned, the appellant asserts that there were sufficient prior approvals before publication and therefore Ext.A1 became an enforceable contract to such a partial extent. That is how the appellant defends the action of issuing cheque for Rs.13,23,000/- to the respondent-Company and claims discharge of liability. 18. The contention of the appellant that there was business understanding between the parties to the effect that each publication of advertisement on specified issue dates needed prior approval of the University cannot be said to be established or probabilised by any circumstances brought on record. Looking at Exts.A1 and A2, we feel that the words and expressions used therein do not suggest that the appellant-University ever desired publication of its advertisements through the respondent- Company only subject to further negotiation or discussion between parties. In the absence of such intention being evidenced from Exts.A1 and A2, they could be only regarded as concluded contracts arrived at between parties. 19. It was also argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that even if Exts.A1 and A2 letters were assumed as concluded contracts, claim of the respondent for the plaint amount is nevertheless time barred since the suit was not brought within the prescribed period of three years since the date of each publication. It is a fact that the suit was filed only on 12.04.2018. The right of the respondent-Company to recover charges as per the invoices accrued since 04.05.2014. It is a fact that the suit was filed only on 12.04.2018. The right of the respondent-Company to recover charges as per the invoices accrued since 04.05.2014. The last advertisement bill for the work executed is dated 01.10.2014. None of the claims based on these bills was made within three years from the date on which right to recover accrued. The respondent does not have a case that Article 1 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 applies to the case on hand. The materials on record also do not reveal that the account maintained by it is a mutual, open and current account. Therefore itself, payments made through cheque dated 30.06.2015 cannot save the period of limitation. Whether or not Article 14 of the Limitation Act relied on by the appellant or Article 113 of the Limitation Act applies, the suit filed obviously exceeded the limit of three years since the date on which right to recover accrued to the Company. 20. The Court below went into the question of limitation raised and took the view that Section 19 of the Limitation Act applied to the facts of the case since payment of Rs.13.23,000/- through cheque dated 30.06.2015 amounted to an acknowledgement of debt giving rise to commencement of a fresh period of limitation since 30.06.2015 and accordingly saved the period of limitations. We are unable to agree to the view taken by the court below as the payment on 30.06.2015, in our opinion, did not at all amount to any acknowledgement in so far as the appellant's liability for the publications made since 04.05.2014 to 01.10.2014 are distinct and separate from those for which the cheque was issued. Acknowledgement of liability could be canvassed only if the respondent could show that Exts.A1 and A2 letters contained only a single and invisible promise postponing the appellant's liability for payment of charges to the last date agreed for performance. Exts.A1 and A2, in our opinion, do not at all disclose that the contract between the parties ever contained acts amounting to indivisible promise for performance. On the other hand, they appear to contain independent transactions involving distinct and separate rights and obligations of parties. Even otherwise also, the very conduct of the respondent also discloses that the respondent-Company treated each publication as a separate transaction creating rights and duties on parties. 21. On the other hand, they appear to contain independent transactions involving distinct and separate rights and obligations of parties. Even otherwise also, the very conduct of the respondent also discloses that the respondent-Company treated each publication as a separate transaction creating rights and duties on parties. 21. The advertisement bills produced before the court below disclose that each bill prepared by the company claimed the advertisement charges for each publication. The payment of charges through cheque dated 30.06.2015 was confined to three transactions that transpired on 03.04.2014, 20.04.2014 and 27.04.2014. It escapes one's understanding as to how the payment made for the said transactions could operate as acknowledgement of liability arising out of transactions during the successive period also. 22. Therefore, there is high probability of the plea of limitation taken by the appellants being upheld. This view of ours certainly renders the chance of the respondent for a prospective decree in the suit less. In short, in view of this emerging situation, we have to hold that the respondent has not been able to advance a bonafide and valid claim against the appellant and thus establish a prima facie case so as to entitle it to seek an order of attachment before the judgment. 23. Even assuming that respondent could establish a prima facie case also, we find it very difficult to justify the plea of the respondent-Company for an order of attachment invoking Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code. The appellant-University is proved to be an Institution established under a Statue. It claims to be holding an extensive area of 52 acres on lease obtained from the State of Uttar Pradesh. Appellant further claims to be a world class University having 15,000 students enrolled from different parts of the country. These facts necessarily hold out the University to the public as an esteemed Institution having credibility and wide reputation. The allegation made against the appellant is that in order to defeat a prospective that may be obtained, the appellant has taken steps to siphon off the amounts kept in the account maintained with Union Bank of India, Noida main branch and remove the same from the jurisdiction of the court. The allegation made against the appellant is that in order to defeat a prospective that may be obtained, the appellant has taken steps to siphon off the amounts kept in the account maintained with Union Bank of India, Noida main branch and remove the same from the jurisdiction of the court. The apprehension expressed is to the effect that unless the attempt being allegedly made by the appellant is timely thwarted, the respondent would be deprived of the benefit of the decree that may be passed against the appellant. 24. The apprehension expressed by the respondent cannot be taken, in our opinion, to be well founded considering the respectability as well as the reputation shown to be held out by the appellant-University. If the account maintained with Union Bank of India, Noida Main Branch is attached, it would certainly bring about a disastrous effect on the functioning of the University. The appellant would be placed in such a position as being disabled from running the Institution itself. The power under Order 38 Rule 5 being drastic requires to be carefully exercised. We do not find necessary materials being made out or established in the present case to convince the court that apprehension as expressed by respondent in para (10) of IA.No. 1631/2018 is reasonable and well founded. In our view, conditions (a) and (b) in Order 38 Rule 5(1) of the Code have not been satisfactorily fulfilled in the case. 25. It is also seriously doubtful whether the order attaching the bank account of the appellant before the judgment could have proceeded from Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code so long as a legal bar could be impliedly read from Order 21 Rule 46 of the Code in as much as chapter XXI of the Code has relegated adequate provisions for attachment of debt in the hands of the third person to the stage of execution of decree against the judgment debtor. Looking at the entire scheme of Order 38 Rule 5 and also the nature of property referred to therein, we have our own doubt as to whether cash deposits maintained in a bank account held by the defendant in a money suit could be brought within the fold of subject matter of attachment under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code. In this case, for the other reasons maintained above, we need not consider that aspect in detail. In any view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the court below has invoked the power to attach the bank account of the appellant without justifiable and adequate reasons. The court below does not seem to have drawn its attention to the vital facts as well as law but only wrongly concluded that respondent made out a prima facie case. Therefore, the impugned common order dated 07.02.2019 in I.A.No.1993/2018 & I.A.No.1631/2018 in O.S.No.84/2018 is liable to be interfered with. Though the question of territorial jurisdiction was seriously taken up before the court below, it was not pursued by the appellant before us in the course of arguments in the appeal. 26. In the result, setting aside the impugned order aforesaid passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ernakulam, F.A.O.No.53 of 2019 is allowed. The order of attachment passed by the court below is ordered to be vacated. It is, however, made clear that we have not expressed our views on merits of the case and the court below will be at full liberty to decide the issues arising in the suit untrammelled by any of the observations made in this appellate order.