JUDGMENT : (Debangsu Basak, J.) :- 1. In a suit for recovery of money, perpetual injunction and other reliefs, the plaintiff has sought attachment before judgement and injunction in this application for interim reliefs. 2. Learned Senior advocate appearing for the plaintiff has submitted that, the defendant Nos. 3 to 9 are companies forming the part of the Williamson Magor group. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 have control over the defendant Nos. 3 to 9. The Williamson Magor group had entered into negotiations with the plaintiff for obtaining long-term loan facilities of up to Rs. 175 crores to be extended by the plaintiff through the defendant No.4 in the shape of term loans and other facilities. The parties had extended a loan agreement dated March 29, 2017. The parties had further negotiations in February 2018. The plaintiff had agreed to invest up to Rs. 100 crores in compulsorily convertible preference shares of the defendant No. 3 as a method of providing financial accommodation to the Williamson Magor group. The parties had entered into a Share Subscription and Shareholders Agreement referred to as the Facility Agreement dated March 27, 2018. The defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 had entered into a Put Option Agreement on March 27, 2018. The defendant Nos. 4, 5 and 8 had executed two several pledge agreements both dated March 27, 2018. The defendant No. 4 had executed various supplementary pledges dated May 9, 2018, March 25, 2019 and March 27, 2019. The defendants had executed various other documents as security for the investment of the plaintiff. In terms of the agreements the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 99,99,98,000/- to the defendant No. 3 as consideration for the allotment of 1,61,29,000/- compulsorily convertible preference shares to the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff had discovered that, the representations made by the defendants for the purpose of obtaining the credit facilities were false, negligent and/or recklessly made. Moreover, from the month of July 2018, the defendants had committed breaches with regard to the credit facilities. The plaintiff had issued various letters to the defendants to rectify the breaches. The response of the defendants had been unsatisfactory. By a letter dated May 10, 2019, the plaintiff had called upon the defendants to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 109,85,50,551/- along with interest. The defendants have failed to pay the demanded amount. 3. The plaintiff had issued various letters to the defendants to rectify the breaches. The response of the defendants had been unsatisfactory. By a letter dated May 10, 2019, the plaintiff had called upon the defendants to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 109,85,50,551/- along with interest. The defendants have failed to pay the demanded amount. 3. Learned senior advocate appearing for the plaintiff has submitted that, the defendants are in involved circumstances. They are unable to pay their debts. Therefore, in the fitness of things, the defendants be called upon to furnish security as has been prayed for. He has drawn the attention of the court to the averments made in the interim application in support of the prayer for attachment before judgement. He has submitted that, there subsists an interim order granted by the court modified by the appeal Court. He has submitted that, such interim order of injunction should continue. 4. Learned Senior advocate appearing for the defendants other than defendant Nos. 6 and 9 has referred to the order dated September 3, 2019. He has submitted that, the plaintiff is an unsecured creditor of the defendant at best. As an unsecured creditor, the plaintiff cannot have its claim converted into a secured claim through the mechanism of an order for attachment before judgement. He has submitted that, necessary averments for obtaining an order for attachment before judgement are absent in the present application. He has relied upon 2008 (2) Supreme Court Cases 302 (Raman Tech. & Process Engg. Co. & Anr. v. Solanki Traders) and All India Reporter 2011 Calcutta 29 (Kohinoor Steel Private Ltd. v. Pravesh Chandra Kapoo). 5. Learned senior advocate appearing for the defendants other than the defendant Nos. 6 and 9 has submitted that, the plaintiff has sold shares amounting to Rs. 50 crores. He has referred to the terms and conditions of the Share Subscription Agreement is also the Put Option Agreement. He has submitted that, the plaintiff has pledge of shares belonging to the defendant Nos. 6 and 9. According to him, the defendant Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8 have no liability in law to repay the debts. They are neither the mortgagors nor guarantors to the plaintiff. 6. Learned senior advocate appearing for the defendants other than the defendant Nos. 6 and 9. According to him, the defendant Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8 have no liability in law to repay the debts. They are neither the mortgagors nor guarantors to the plaintiff. 6. Learned senior advocate appearing for the defendants other than the defendant Nos. 6 and 9 has submitted that, there has not been any change of circumstances from the date of the first order passed in the interim application and the subsequent order of the appeal court. The only change that has taken place is the sale of shares made by the plaintiff. All other shares and securities are available with the plaintiff. Therefore, at this stage, an order for attachment before judgement should not be passed. 7. Learned senior advocate appearing for the defendant Nos. 6 and 9 has submitted that, the plaintiff has not prayed for any order as against such defendants. 8. Raman Tech. & Process Engg. Co. & Anr. (supra) has considered the provisions of attachment before judgement in a suit for recovery of price of goods sold and delivered. It has held as follows: – “5. The power under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC is a drastic and extraordinary power. Such power should not be exercised mechanically or merely for the asking. It should be used sparingly and strictly in accordance with the Rule. The purpose of Order 38 Rule 5 is not to convert an unsecured debt into a secured debt. Any attempt by a plaintiff to utilise the provisions of Order 38 Rule 5 as a leverage for coercing the defendant to settle the suit claim should be discouraged. Instances are not wanting where bloated and doubtful claims are realised by unscrupulous plaintiffs by obtaining orders of attachment before judgment and forcing the defendants for out-of-court settlements under threat of attachment. 6. A defendant is not debarred from dealing with his property merely because a suit is filed or about to be filed against him. Shifting of business from one premises to another premises or removal of machinery to another premises by itself is not a ground for granting attachment before judgment. 6. A defendant is not debarred from dealing with his property merely because a suit is filed or about to be filed against him. Shifting of business from one premises to another premises or removal of machinery to another premises by itself is not a ground for granting attachment before judgment. A plaintiff should show, prima facie, that his claim is bona fide and valid and also satisfy the court that the defendant is about to remove or dispose of the whole or part of his property, with the intention of obstructing or delaying the execution of any decree that may be passed against him, before power is exercised under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC. Courts should also keep in view the principles relating to grant of attachment before judgment. (See Premraj Mundra v. Md. Manech Gazi [ AIR 1951 Cal 156 ] for a clear summary of the principles.).” 9. Kohinoor Steel Private Limited (supra) has considered various authorities including Raman Tech. & Process Engg. Co. & Anr. (supra) and observed that, it is not the law of the land that a defendant in a money suit is required to show that his earnings are sufficient to pay of the decreetal amount if the suit is ultimately decreed, otherwise, he should suffer an order of injunction in the form of attachment before judgement should give security during the pendency of the suit. In the facts of that case, it has been held that, on the basis of the allegations made in the petition no order is direction to give security or injunction in the form of attachment can be passed. 10. The contentions of the respective parties had been considered in details at the time of passing of the ad interim order dated September 3, 2019. By the order dated September 3, 2019, the Court had found that, the defendant No. 6 and 7 comprises the William Magor Group and all the defendants are liable to pay the demand of the plaintiff under the Put Option Agreement. The Court had also found that, the plaintiff had substantiated the conditions laid down in Raman Tech. & Process Engg. Co. & Anr. (supra). 11. The defendant Nos. 6 and 9 had carried two separate appeals from the ad interim order dated September 3, 2019 being APO No. 2019 of 2019 and APO No. 144 of 2019. The Court had also found that, the plaintiff had substantiated the conditions laid down in Raman Tech. & Process Engg. Co. & Anr. (supra). 11. The defendant Nos. 6 and 9 had carried two separate appeals from the ad interim order dated September 3, 2019 being APO No. 2019 of 2019 and APO No. 144 of 2019. Both the appeals have been disposed of by a judgment and order dated November 25, 2019. The Appeal Court had returned the finding that, there was no doubt that several of the defendants in the suit owe money to the plaintiff. It had also held that, on the basis of the agreements between such defendants and the plaintiff, the quantification is no difficult task. It had moulded the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff to ensure that the primary wrong doers or defaulters do not obtain any benefit from the defendants Nos. 6 and 9 in the event the assets of the defendant number 6 and 9 or the entirety of such companies are sold out. It has observed as follows:- “As a consequence, the judgment and order impugned dated September 3, 2019, insofar as it injuncts the defendant Nos. 6 and 9 from transferring or alienating or encumbering any of their tangible or intangible assets till the disposal of the relevant interlocutory application, is vacated. However, all the defendants except the defendant Nos. 6 and 9 will remain restrained from using the proceeds or usufructs from the sale of any asset of the defendant Nos. 6 and 9 or either of them and all corporate entities with which the defendants, excluding the defendant Nos. 6 and 9 are associated will also remain injuncted accordingly. In other words, monies coming out of the sale of any asset of Mcleod Russel or of Eveready cannot be received by any of the other defendants in the suit despite their entitlement to so receive nor can such monies be utilized to make any payment to the corporate entities with which the defendants, other than the defendant Nos. 6 and 9, are associated till the entire debt of the plaintiff is first discharged. It is made clear that the views expressed here are tentative and it will be open to the interlocutory court to decide the interlocutory application uninfluenced by the order impugned herein and the observations in this order.” 12. 6 and 9, are associated till the entire debt of the plaintiff is first discharged. It is made clear that the views expressed here are tentative and it will be open to the interlocutory court to decide the interlocutory application uninfluenced by the order impugned herein and the observations in this order.” 12. The merits of the rival contentions had been considered in details at the ad-interim stage upto the Appeal Court. Although the Appeal Court had allowed the interlocutory court to decide the interlocutory application being uninfluenced by the ad interim order and the observations made in the judgement and order of the appeal court dated November 25, 2019, I find no new material being brought on record by any of the parties to take a view which is contrary to the judgement and order dated November 25, 2019. Given the materials made available on record subsequent to the ad-interim order an elaborate discussion of the merits of the rival contentions is not called for. 13. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to dispose of the interlocutory application by passing the same order as has been granted on November 25, 2019 and as quoted in paragraph 11 herein. 14. IA No. GA 1 of 2019 Old T.A. No 12 of 2019 in CS No 177 of 2019 is disposed of accordingly without any order of costs.