1. ' This application under Order XXXVIII, rule 5, C. P. C. Is filed by the plaintiff for attachment before judgment of the amount lying with M/s. National Films Development Corporation payable to defendant. On 2nd August, 1983 the Court directed issuance of notice of the above application to defendants and in the meantime M/s. National Films Development Corporation and M/s. Kohi Noor Cinema, Hyderabad were directed not to make any payment to the defendants to the extent of the amount claimed in the suit. The prohibitory order has been served on M/s. National Films Development Corporation and M/s. Kohi Noor Cinema, Hyderabad, and no objection is filed on their behalf. Mr. Riazul Hassan, the learned counsel for the plaintiff states that according to his instructions substantial amount is due and payable to the defendants in the hands of M Is. National Films Development Corporation, Karachi. The learned counsel contends that the defendants have no assets except the amount payable to them by National Films Development Corporation and they trying to obtain payment of these amounts with the object of delaying and defeating the decree which may be passed against them in the suit. The application is opposed by the defendants. The learned counsel for the defendants contends that the suit is premature as the sum of Rs, one lac given as loan to the defendants is recoverable only in accordance with condition No, 4 of agreement, dated 7th November, 1972 and as the amount has not become due in terms thereof, therefore, the present application does not lie. The condition relied by the learned counsel for defendants is as follows :- "That the repayment of the aforesaid loan amounting to Rs, 1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) shall be made from the first releases of the aforesaid three pictures, which is expected in the month of January, 1983 but as abandoned caution the date may be extended upto 31st of March, 1983 at any place in Pakistan other than Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad."
2. ' Mr. Farhat Ali Khan, the learned counsel for the defendants contends that admittedly so far only one of the pictures has been released and, therefore, the plaintiff can at best claim only one-third of the total amount of loan. The learned counsel further contends that upon reading paragraph 8 of the plaint it is quite clear that the plaintiff consented to the extension of time for repayment up to 12th July, 1983 and as such there was novation of contract. I have read the agreement and paragraph 8 of plaint and I am of the view that the inferences sought to be drawn from them by the learned counsel are not justified. It is true that in para. 4 of the agreement it is mentioned that the sum of Rs, one lac will be repaid to the plaintiff by the defendants after the first release of the aforesaid three pictures mentioned therein but para. 5 of the agreement also clearly provides that if the loan is not paid within the period mentioned in clause 4 of the loan will become payable immediately. Learned counsel for the defendants contends that clause 5 in the agreement is to be read with clause 4 which provides that the loan is to be repaid out of moneys earned from release of three pictures. Clause 5 of the agreement is quite independent of clause 4 and comes into play only after expiry of the period mentioned in clause 4. Since the amount of loan is not disputed and it is also not disputed that the defendants have no other property within the jurisdiction of this Court from which the claim of plaintiff could be satisfied in the event of a decree in their favour, I make the prohibitory order issued earlier absolute. However, if the defendant furnishes bank guarantee to the extent of the amount claimed in the suit within one month from today the prohibitory order shall stand discharged.