JUDGMENT Ravi Krishan Kapur, J. - This is a suit for recovery of money. 2. The disputes by and between the parties arise out of an agreement dated 31 July, 2014, for purchase of an Aqua Golf Villa, Phase-I situated at Vedic Village at Kolkata (the premises). 3. Pursuant to an agreement for sale dated 31 July, 2014, the petitioner paid Rs.72,50,000/- to the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 duly acknowledged receipt of the same. The agreement also guaranteed return of interest @ 18% per annum compounded annually, in case the respondent no.1 failed to deliver possession of the premises to the petitioner within 24 months. The last date for handing over possession of the premises expired on 31 July 2016. The respondent no.1 was unable to deliver possession of the premises to the petitioner. The respondent no.1 also failed to return the money. 4. Thereafter, diverse negotiations took place by and between the parties. Ultimately, in or about September 2020, the respondents agreed to transfer 15 cottahs of land inside Vedic Village within three months upon the petitioner completing the due diligence of the proposed land. Subsequently, it transpired that the proposed land to be transferred to the petitioner had already been sold to a third party. 5. In November 2020, after negotiations, the respondent no.3 agreed to transfer a different piece of land measuring around 15 cottahs inside the Vedic Village Compound to the petitioner. Accordingly, the parties entered into an agreement dated 16 December, 2020, whereby the respondents agreed to transfer 15 cottahs of an alternative plot to the petitioner within three months from the date of execution of the deed of conveyance. 6. On 27 September, 2021, the petitioner ultimately issued a letter to the respondents through its Advocate, terminating the agreement in view of the failure of the respondents to handover the site. Hence, this suit. 7. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the default and failure of the respondents, to honour their obligations under the agreements dated 31 July, 2014 and 16 December, 2020 respectively, the petitioner is entitled to refund of the entirety of the said sum of Rs.72,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum aggregating to Rs.2,30,94,686/-. 7. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the default and failure of the respondents, to honour their obligations under the agreements dated 31 July, 2014 and 16 December, 2020 respectively, the petitioner is entitled to refund of the entirety of the said sum of Rs.72,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum aggregating to Rs.2,30,94,686/-. Moreover, by the Memorandum of Understanding dated 16 December, 2020, the respondent no.3 has acknowledged default of the respondents, in complying with their obligations under the agreement dated 31 July, 2014. Additionally, notwithstanding an unequivocal obligation (Clause-III) under the MOU dated 16 December, 2020 stipulating that the respondents would hand over all title documents including the sale deed, parchas, LR information slips, khajna receipts and the like within 7 days from the date of execution of the agreement, the respondents were unable to hand over the same. 8. It is further alleged that since 2014, the respondents have been holding on to the money advanced by the petitioner and have failed to honour their contractual obligations. It is also contended that the proposed land which had been shown to the petitioner is marshy land and wholly unfit for any purpose. The petitioner relies on Harleen Jairath Vs. Prabha Surana and Anr. reported in (2019) 4 CHN 412 paras 45-54, Prabha Surana Vs. Jaideep Halwasiya reported in AIR 2021 Cal 212 and Rahul S. Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418 , to contend that, the petitioner is entitled to be adequately secured in respect of its claim. 9. On behalf of the respondents, it is contended that, the petitioner is in breach of his contractual obligations both under the agreement dated 31 July, 2014 and under the agreement dated 16 December, 2020. It is contended that all the title documents had been handed over to the petitioner. It is also alleged that the respondents were ready and willing to convey the premises to the petitioner, but it is the petitioner who is has been unwilling to honour his obligations. In this connection, the respondents have also filed a suit being CS 57 of 2022 inter alia seeking a decree of specific performance of the agreement dated 16 December, 2020. The agreement dated 16 December, 2020 is not a determinable contract and that the respondents have marketable title in respect of the same. In this connection, the respondents have also filed a suit being CS 57 of 2022 inter alia seeking a decree of specific performance of the agreement dated 16 December, 2020. The agreement dated 16 December, 2020 is not a determinable contract and that the respondents have marketable title in respect of the same. In this connection, reliance is placed on the decisions reported in Golden Tobacco vs. Golden Tobby 2021 2 SCC OnLine 4506 at para 36-43 and Shankar Lal vs. Jaithmal AIR 1961 RAJ 196 at para 16, 19 and 20. It is further alleged that the petitioner has failed to satisfy any of the grounds warranting an order of attachment. There is no likelihood of the respondents dealing with any of their assets or of defrauding its creditors. Moreover, as an unsecured creditor, the petitioner ought not to be converted into a secured creditor. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 10. I have considered the submissions of the parties. 11. Admittedly, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.72,50,000/- as far back as on 31 July, 2014 to the respondents. The respondents have duly received the said amount and have enjoyed the same. The respondents have been unable to hand over the premises in terms of the agreement dated 31 July, 2014 to the petitioner. By an agreement dated 16 December, 2020, the parties had attempted to renegotiate the terms and conditions of the original agreement. However, the respondents have also been unable to give any alternative agreeable site to the petitioner till date. The petitioner has been out of pocket of Rs.72,50,000/-. Subsequently, the petitioner has been compelled to terminate the agreement. Now, the petitioner is being made to run from pillar to post. 12. Order 38 Rule V of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with attachment before judgment. The main object of an order for attachment before judgment is to secure a plaintiff to realise the decreetal dues in case a decree is eventually passed. In other words, an order of attachment before judgment prevents the defendant from defeating the fruits of a decree which may ultimately be passed in favour of the plaintiff. 13. A very strong prima facie case is an essential first step to an order in the nature of attachment before judgment. In other words, an order of attachment before judgment prevents the defendant from defeating the fruits of a decree which may ultimately be passed in favour of the plaintiff. 13. A very strong prima facie case is an essential first step to an order in the nature of attachment before judgment. Unless, a near unimpeachable claim in money is apparent, there is no requirement to proceed with the second stage of assessing the conduct or the financial capacity of the respondent. [Raman Tech. & Process Engg. Co. v. Solanki Traders) (2008) 2 SCC 302 @ Paras 4 and 5, Harleen Jairath v. Prabha Surana and Anr. (2019) 4 CHN 412 @ Paras 17 & 18, Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. vs. Hyquip Systems (P) Ltd. (2010) 4 CHN 87 (Cal). 14. The approach of Courts in such matters, where the claim of the plaintiff is indisputable and unassailable is to protect the plaintiff and to ensure that ultimately the decree is satisfied. (Rahul S. Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and Ors. (2021) 6 SCC 418 @ Paras 41 and 42). 15. This suit was filed in 2021. Notwithstanding repeated opportunities granted by a Co-ordinate Bench, the parties were not able to arrive at a settlement. There is nothing which the respondents have been able to offer as worthwhile or solvent security. Thus, the petitioner needs to be protected. 16. It is a commentary on the times that we live in that to a section of society our country has become a Defaulter's Paradise. Unfortunately, the system also encourages this attitude. Even more worrisome is the trend of, 'discount', 'bargain' and to use a more fashionable phrase 'haircut'. They intentionally and deliberately choose not to repay their debts. On the other hand, the defendants in such cases prefer to procrastinate and litigate. The security which a Court should direct in such cases ought to be real, realisable and not illusory. 17. In Abheya Realtors Private Limited vs. SSIPL Retail Limited & Anr. reported in (2010) 2 CHN 203 it has been observed as follows:- 'Two aspects need to be seriously considered. At the time that the Civil Procedure Code came to be made suits would not take years or decades to be brought to trial as is usually the case these days. reported in (2010) 2 CHN 203 it has been observed as follows:- 'Two aspects need to be seriously considered. At the time that the Civil Procedure Code came to be made suits would not take years or decades to be brought to trial as is usually the case these days. The strength of the principle that an apparently good claim would not justify an order for attachment to be made before final judgment is rendered, needs to be seen with reference to the time and place in which such principle was born. The second aspect is that even without a defendant attempting to defraud its creditors or the plaintiff, the vicissitudes of the commercial market may leave the defendant with little to offer as judgment-debtor upon the decree being made. The sheer passage of time between the institution of an action and the trial thereof that has now come to be accepted as par for the course may make the claim irrelevant or even the claimant disinterested. That would result in an erosion of the confidence in the system and lead suitors to undesirable quarters for more effective results.' 18. The authorities cited by the respondents are distinguishable and inapposite to the facts of the case. There cannot be an absolute proposition that in money claims no order of injunction, attachment or Receiver can be made. In Premraj Mundra vs. Md. Maneck Gazi & Ors. reported in AIR 1951 Cal 156 , the Court had only enumerated guiding principles which may be taken into consideration in adjudicating upon the aspect of attachment upon judgment. 19. I find that the respondents have been unable to deliver possession of the premises which formed the subject matter of the agreement dated 31 July, 2014 to the petitioner. Thereafter, it appears that, the petitioner was shown marshy land with a water body in the middle, land marked as K4 which did not exist, land not connected to any approach road and land which has been earmarked for security guards. Thus, the parties have been unable to agree on a proposed site for close to a decade. It is obvious that insofar as the petitioner is concerned there has been a total failure of consideration and the respondents have been unable to either handover the premises or any alternative site which the petitioner is agreeable to accept. Thus, the parties have been unable to agree on a proposed site for close to a decade. It is obvious that insofar as the petitioner is concerned there has been a total failure of consideration and the respondents have been unable to either handover the premises or any alternative site which the petitioner is agreeable to accept. The petitioner has also terminated the agreement and now seeks refund of the money. Accordingly, in my view the petitioner is justifiably not interested in dealing with the respondents after a period of 8 years and there being a total failure of consideration. 20. I also do not find any merit in the defence raised by the respondents. The filing of a suit for specific performance being CS No. 58 of 2022 subsequent to the institution of this suit appears to be a counterblast and simply a red herring. I do not find any merit in the plea that the agreement dated 16 December, 2020 is not a determinable contract or that the petitioner is not entitled to terminate the same. Similarly, there is no question of readiness or willingness of the petitioner, when the respondents have not been able to handover the original premises or any alternative site. Thus, the claim of the petitioner is unimpeachable, unassailable and bonafide. The respondents have also chosen not offer any solvent security to secure the claim of the petitioner. 21. Even on the aspect of interest on the said sum of Rs.72,50,000/- paid by the petitioner, the respondents have no case. By a letter dated 30 July 2014 the respondents represented by the respondent no. 3, guaranteed to repay the principal amount along with interest @18% per annum compounded annually. The petitioner is a home buyer. The respondents are inter alia engaged in the business of real estate development. The respondents have enjoyed the funds of the petitioner for close to 8 years. In my view, the respondents are contractually obliged to honour their obligation of paying interest @18% per annum compounded annually. In fact, it would be not only be inequitable but commercially imprudent to secure the petitioner only to the extent of the principal amount when the parties had consciously bargained and agreed on the interest component. 22. In view of the aforesaid, there shall be an order of injunction in terms of prayer (c) of the Notice of Motion. In fact, it would be not only be inequitable but commercially imprudent to secure the petitioner only to the extent of the principal amount when the parties had consciously bargained and agreed on the interest component. 22. In view of the aforesaid, there shall be an order of injunction in terms of prayer (c) of the Notice of Motion. It is made clear that the restraint is only limited to the extent of Rs.2,30,94,686/-. 23. With the aforesaid directions, GA 1 of 2021 stands disposed of.