Chandka 1 NMS-104-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 104 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO. 89 OF 2010 Chandrakant G. Masrani ..Plaintiff versus Mrs. Pushpaben Prakash Vanjara ..Defendant Mr. J. J. Thakkar for Plaintiff. None for Defendant. CORAM : DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 14 March 2011. P.C. : The Defendant has been served by substituted service and an affidavit of service has been filed. 2. This is a Motion under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for attachment before judgment. The claim of the Plaintiff in the suit which is instituted under Order XXXVII is for the recovery of an amount of Rs.12,47,300/- together with interest due under a loan alleged to have been granted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. The Plaintiff and the Chandka 2 NMS-104-10 Defendant were neighbours and the spouse of the Defendant who is an Income Tax Practitioner was engaged by the Plaintiff to handle his income tax work. The Defendant is stated to be the owner of two residential flats at Kandivli (West). The Plaintiff alleges that an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was advanced by way of a loan of which part payment of Rs.5,22,700/- was made. The balance together with interest is stated to be due and payable. 3. The contention of the Plaintiff is that the residential premises of the Defendant have been locked and the Defendant and her husband have shifted. It has been stated that the office premises of the Defendant and/or her husband at Kandivli (West) had been disposed of. In paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Affidavit in Support of the Motion, it has been stated that the Plaintiff has learnt that the Defendant is attempting to sell the residential flats at Kandivli (West) from one Shri Tarun Tulsidas Thakkar, whose affidavit is also filed at Exhibit ‘E’. In paragraph 14 it has been stated that in all likelihood the Defendant and her husband may shift abroad where their children are residing. The Plaintiff has stated that the Defendant has also taken loans together with her husband from several other persons who have not been paid. 4. No reply has been filed by the Defendant. Chandka 3 NMS-104-10 5. Having regard to the averments made in the Affidavit in Support, the ingredients of Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub Rule (1) of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 have been made out. The Defendant is accordingly directed to furnish security in the amount of Rs.12,47,300/- to the satisfaction of the Prothonotary & Senior Master within a period of four weeks from today failing which the Motion shall stand absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). In the meantime, the ad interim order which has been passed on 18 January 2010 shall continue to remain in force. The Motion is disposed of accordingly. 6. The suit shall be placed for directions on 18 April 2011. (Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, J.)