IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01.12.2011 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA A.No.2478 to 2481 of 2011 in C.S.No.356 of 2011 ORDER All these applications have been filed by the plaintiff/ applicant with the prayer to direct the second respondent/defendant to furnish security for the suit amount on the date to be fixed by this Court, failing which direct attachment before judgment the schedule immovable property belonging to the second respondent/defendant. 2 The case of the plaintiff/applicant, is that the defendants No.1 and 2, had current account with the plaintiff/Bank. The defendant No.2 in connivance with the defendant No.3 who was employer of the plaintiff Bank, played fraud with the bank to siphon off a sum of Rs.25,00,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five crores only) belonging to Coal India. The other defendants were the beneficiaries of fraud of defendants No.1 to 3. 3 That all the accounts of the defendants/respondents stand frozen by the C.B.I. This Court therefore is not concerned about accounts of the defendants which stand frozen. 4 Along with the suit, plaintiff/applicant filed this application by invoking Order 38 Rule 5 of C.P.C., to direct the second respondent/ defendant to furnish security or in the alternative to attach the schedule property. 4 The reading of the affidavit filed in support of the application, shows that the schedule property which is sought to be attached already stand mortgaged to the plaintiff Bank. 5 In view of the fact that the schedule property is already mortgaged with the plaintiff Bank, no ground is made out to order attachment of the property. The applicant in support of relief claimed does not satisfy the requirement of Order 38 Rule 5, nor any useful purpose is going to be served to attach the mortgaged property. 6 Finding no merit, all the applications are dismissed. No cost. vaan