SAI ELECTROMECH INDUSTRIES Vs. SICAGEN INDIA LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Mr.R.Palaniandavan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.D.S.Ramesh, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) This appeal is directed against the order dtd. 3/3/2020 in Application No.5206 of 2017 in C.S.No.676 of 2017, wherein an application filed by the respondent / plaintiff under Order 38 Rule 5 was ordered and the appellant / defendant was directed to furnish security for the suit claim of Rs.1,23,62,585.00.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the affidavit filed in support of the application is a verbatim repetition of the plaint averments and none of the essential averments needed to support an application under Order 38 Rule 5 of C.P.C., finds place in the affidavit. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Court also has not recorded its satisfaction by affidavit or otherwise that the appellant / defendant with an intent to obstruct the delay of any decree that may be passed is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property or to remove whole or any part of his property from the local jurisdiction limits of the Court. Therefore, unless and until such satisfaction is recorded by the Court, an order to furnish security under Order 38 Rule 5 cannot be passed.