JUDGMENT : Krishna Rao, J. 1. The plaintiff has filed the instant application praying for appointment of Special Officer/Receiver for taking possession of books of account and to finds the details of various transactions with various debtors and other parties and to collect the trade receivable by the defendant from the debtors of the defendant. 2. The plaintiff had filed the suit against the defendant being C.S. No. 156 of 2020 praying for a decree for a sum of Rs. 5,41,88,527/- along with interest. The plaintiff previously filed an application being G.A No. 1 of 2020 praying for an order of injunction restraining the defendant from withdrawing any amount from the bank mentioned in prayer (a) of the said application. In the said application, this Court has passed an order restraining the defendant from withdrawing any sum from S.B. A/c No. 910010017274507 maintained with the Axis Bank Limited, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata and S.B A/c No. 3102135000011008 with Karur Vysya Bank, Shakespeare Sarani Branch, Kolkata without keeping aside a sum of Rs. 5 crore towards the claim of the plaintiff. 3. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the defendant in connection with G.A No. 1 of 2021, the defendant stated that the defendant did not have any control over the S.B. A/c No. 910010017274507 maintained with the Axis Bank Limited as the said account was opened by the finance broker Shri Shanti Kumar Surana in the name of the defendant and the defendant has handed over blank signed cheques to Shanti Kumar Surana for his use. The plaintiff confronted the above statement to Shri Shanti Kumar Surana, he has denied the allegation made by the defendant. Shanti Kumar Surana vide his letter dated August 2, 2021 clarified that the allegation made by the defendant in the affidavit-in-opposition are absolutely false and the defendant had also filed a suit being C.S. No. 89 of 2021 before this Court against one Gyan Nidhi Trust and others including Shanti Kumar Surana. 4. Mr. Rupak Ghosh, Learned Counsel representing the plaintiff submits that from the plaint filed by the defendant being CS No. 89 of 2021 reveals that the defendant had given financial accommodation of Rs. 6,29,35,750/- to Gyan Nidhi Trust. He further submits that the amount of Rs. 6,29,35,750/- was transferred by the defendant from his Axis Bank account. 5. Mr. 4. Mr. Rupak Ghosh, Learned Counsel representing the plaintiff submits that from the plaint filed by the defendant being CS No. 89 of 2021 reveals that the defendant had given financial accommodation of Rs. 6,29,35,750/- to Gyan Nidhi Trust. He further submits that the amount of Rs. 6,29,35,750/- was transferred by the defendant from his Axis Bank account. 5. Mr. Ghosh submits that from the plaint filed by the defendant in C.S No. 89 of 2021, it also reveals that the defendant is also in the business of lending money and thus the plaintiff believes that the defendant has lot of trade receivables in the market including a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs receivable from Vikash Baid as per the order dated 13th April, 2021 passed in C.S No. 77 of 2021. He further submits that an amount of Rs. 6,51,50,000/- receivable from Sudha Kankaria against which a suit being C.S No. 142 of 2021 is pending against the defendant. 6. Mr. Ghosh submits that the plaintiff apprehend that the defendant will clandestinely dispose of all the assets and properties with the intent to obstruct or delay the execution of the decree which is likely to be passed in favour of the plaintiff in the suit. 7. Mr. Ghosh relied upon the judgment reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418 (Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and Others) and submits that in a money suit, the Court must invariably resort to Order 21, Rule 11, ensuring immediate excuse and of decree for payment of money on oral application and in a suit for payment of money, before settlement of issue the defendant may be required to disclose his assets on oath, to the extent that he is being made liable in a suit. 8. Per contra, Mr. Rohit Banerjee, representing the defendant submits that the application filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable under law as the same is misconceived and barred by res-judicata. He submits that previously the plaintiff has filed an application for grant of injunction against the defendant and this Court had already passed an interim order in favour of the plaintiff. 9. Mr. Banerjee submits that as per the notice dated 9th March, 2018 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata had attached a sum of Rs. 9. Mr. Banerjee submits that as per the notice dated 9th March, 2018 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata had attached a sum of Rs. 10,08,43,749/- of the Axis Bank account towards the income tax dues for several assessment years from 2010 to 2017 and by a further notice dated 7th March, 2019, the Assessing Officer, Income Tax attached a sum of Rs. 1,13,85,464/-. 10. Mr. Banerjee submits that on receipt of the said notice the Axis Bank had informed the defendant that an amount of Rs. 99,163/- is paid from the said account to the Income Tax Authority and remaining petty amount is marked as lien in the said account. 11. Mr. Banerjee submits that the plaintiff had the knowledge about the involvement of Shri Shanti Kumar Surana who was the ultimate recipient and beneficiary of the loan but the plaintiff has filed the instant suit without impleading Shanti Kumar Surana as a necessary party in the instant suit. 12. Mr. Banerjee submits that initially the plaintiff has filed an application for injunction on the similar fact and without any change of circumstances, or any subsequent event which gives rise to a cause of action, the plaintiff has filed the instant application which is not maintainable under law. 13. Mr. Banerjee submits that the plaintiff has filed the instant application only on the allegation of apprehension. He further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down principles which are required to be followed by this court before invoking the jurisdiction under Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in the said case, none of the grounds of the plaintiff are covered under the said principle. 14. Mr. Banerjee relied upon the judgment reported in (2008) 2 SCC 302 (Raman Tech. and Process Engineering Co & Anr. vs. Solanki Traders) and submits that the power under Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC is a drastic and extraordinary power. Such power should not be exercised mechanically or merely for asking. It should be used sparingly and is strictly in accordance with Rule, any attempt by a plaintiff to utilize the provisions of Order 38 Rule 5 as a leverage for coercing the defendant to settle the suit claim should be discouraged. 15. Mr. Banerjee relied upon the judgment reported in 1995 (1) Mh. It should be used sparingly and is strictly in accordance with Rule, any attempt by a plaintiff to utilize the provisions of Order 38 Rule 5 as a leverage for coercing the defendant to settle the suit claim should be discouraged. 15. Mr. Banerjee relied upon the judgment reported in 1995 (1) Mh. L.J. 91 (BDA Limited, Bombay vs. Central Bank of India) and submits that Receiver is not required to be appointed unless there is some substantial ground for such interference, such as a well founded apprehension that the property in suit will be dissipated or other irreparable mischief may be done unless the Court appoints a Receiver. 16. Mr. Banerjee relied upon the unreported judgment passed by this Court in the case of Rajgaria Timber Private Limited vs. Bhola Nath Shaw dated 22nd September, 2022 in CS 223 of 2022 and submits that this Court has rejected the application for appointment of Receiver as it was not satisfied with any of the conditions of the Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 17. Heard the learned respective parties, perused the materials on record and the judgments relied by the parties. This Court on the application filed by the plaintiff previously, passed an interim order restraining the defendant from withdrawing a sum from the Axis Bank account and Karur Vysya Bank without keeping aside sum of Ra. 5 crore towards the claim of the plaintiff. 18. The plaintiff has filed the instant application for appointment of Receiver and in the application, the plaintiff has stated that in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the defendant in connection with previous application for grant of injunction, the defendant has stated that the account of Axis Bank is being maintained by one Shanti Kumar Surana and all the cheques have been given to Shanti Kumar Surana. 19. This Court in G.A. No. 1 of 2020 in CS No. 156 of 2020 dated 8th January, 2021 passed the following order : “In such circumstances, the plaintiff having made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience being in favour of the plaintiff and unless an order of injunction is passed, there is every likelihood of the plaintiff being prejudiced, it would be appropriate to pass an order of injunction in terms of prayer (b) of the application. The defendant is restrained from withdrawing any sum from S.B. A/c No. 910010017274507 maintained with Axis Bank Ltd., Sarat Bose Road Branch, Kolkata – 700 020 and S.B. A/c No. 3102135000011008 with Karur Vysya Bank, Shakespeare Sarani Branch, Kolkata – 700 017 without keeping aside a sum of Rs. 5 crores towards the claim of the plaintiff.” 20. The contention raised by the plaintiff in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the defendant in connection with G.A. No. 1 of 2021, the defendant has stated that : “(d) Mr. Surana had no registration with any stock exchange, to act as a stock broker. However, since 2005, he conducted a part of his business of stock trading through me as my client. In this process separate bank accounts were opened in my name from time to time with various banks namely Corporation Bank, Canning Street Branch, ABN Ambro Bank, India Exchange Place Branch, IDBi Bank, Park Street Branch, IndusInd Bank, Theatre Road Branch, Karur Vysya Bank Shakespeare Sarani Branch, Axis Bank, Sarat Bose Road Branch, Kotak Mahindra Bank, Louden Street Branch, to name a few. Mr. Surana used these accounts, which were in my name, to trade in stocks and conduct his business of accommodation loan. At all material time, the bank accounts were under the control of Mr. Surana. The blank cheques and blank RTGS forms signed by me together with passbooks and all relevant documents of the bank accounts were kept under the custody of Mr. Surana at his office. The books of accounts and statutory liabilities were also maintained by Mr. Surana, from his office. (e) In May 2010, Mr. Surana, instructed me to open the bank account with Axis Bank, Sarat Bose Road Branch. A bank account having account no. 910010017274507 (hereinafter referred to as the said bank account) was thus opened in my name. Mr. Surana was already maintaining a separate account in this bank. In addition to that, the companies where he was a director, the other directors of the companies and his HUF also maintained separate accounts with Axis Bank, Sarat Bose Road Branch. The account was used for the same purpose of stock trading and providing accommodation loans. The blank cheques and blank RTGS forms signed by me and all relevant documents of the bank account was similarly kept under the custody of Mr. Surana and at his office.” 21. The account was used for the same purpose of stock trading and providing accommodation loans. The blank cheques and blank RTGS forms signed by me and all relevant documents of the bank account was similarly kept under the custody of Mr. Surana and at his office.” 21. The injunction application filed by the plaintiff is still pending for final disposal. The plaintiff has also stated that the defendant has filed several suits being C.S No. 89 of 2021, C.S. No. 77 of 2021 and C.S No. 139 of 2021 against other persons for recovery of money. The plaintiff in CS No. 89 of 2021 made an averment that he has made transaction with the defendant in the Axis Bank Account in which the plaintiff of the present suit obtain an order of injunction. 22. It is well settled that the object of the provisions for attachment before judgment is to prevent any attempt on the part of the defendant to defeat the realization of the decree that may be passed against the defendant. 23. The attachment before judgment would be made where the Court is satisfied that the defendant is about to dispose of whole or part of his property or is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the local limits of the jurisdiction of Court with the intention to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against the defendant. Thus, the provision will apply where the defendant is about to dispose whole or part of the property and not where the property has already been disposed of much before the filing of the suit. 24. The rule applies only where the defendant is about to dispose of, or remove his property from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. Therefore, the Rule can be applied to show that the defendant has acted, or is about to act with the intent to obstruct or delay the execution of the decree that may be passed against him. There must be definite evidence on the point that defendant is about to dispose of the whole or part of his property and that the disposal is with the intention of obstructing or delaying the decree that may be passed against the defendant. 25. There must be definite evidence on the point that defendant is about to dispose of the whole or part of his property and that the disposal is with the intention of obstructing or delaying the decree that may be passed against the defendant. 25. The grounds in support of the appointment of receiver for attachment have been summarized in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the application. It has been alleged that the defendant with the intent to obstruct and delay execution of decree that is likely to be passed in the suit about to dispose of the receivable from his debtors. There is nothing on record to show that any such incident was occurred that the defendant has disposed of or alienated the receivable debts. The circumstances which the plaintiff has shown are that the defendant has initiated suits against different persons for recovery of his debts. The plaintiff has not filed any document to show that the defendant has alienated or is going to be alienated any property. 26. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that there is no material on record for appointment of Receiver. Accordingly, G.A 3 of 2022 is thus dismissed.