1. ' This is an application under Order 38, Rule 5, C.P.C. Wherein it is prayed that the assets including the office premises of the defendant No,1 M/s. Skyline (Pvt.) Travels Limited be attached and the passports of the defendants Nos.2 to 7 be impounded as it is apprehended that they would leave Pakistan in order to delay or defeat the recovery of plaintiff's claim.
2. ' Mr. Sadruddin Hudda relying upon PLD 1976 Kar. 926, PLD 1977 Kar. 771, PLD 1979 Kar. 723, PLD 1982 Kar. 701, 1982 CLC 1360 and 1985 CLC 38, submitted that by now it is settled law that attachment before judgment is to be granted in cases only when the Court is satisfied that the defendants are intending to leave the country with a view to delay or defeat the recovery of the plaintiff's amount.
3. It was also a settled law that vague allegation about such intention was not sufficient and specific evidence of the same should be led before the Court.
4. ' This is a suit filed by the Travel Agents Association of Pakistan for recovery of Rs,9,42,848.77 against defendants Nos.1 to 7. The case of the plaintiff is that it is an association of the registered travel agents of Pakistan and is responsible to IATA. An approval to travel agency before it can deal with any airline is granted by IATA which such agency joins the association and the association guarantees the payment of dues to airlines if there is any default committed by any member of its association. M/s. Skyline (Pvt) Travels Limited is a Private Limited Company and defendants Nos.2 to 7 are its directors. It is alleged that in May 1987 it was in default of Rs,14,95,110.41 to various airlines.
5. It made a payment of Rs,5,29,700 and some deduction was also allowed on account of refund and profit, etc. Still there was a default of Rs,9,42,848.77. The plaintiff had to make a payment of Rs,2,01,986.50 to P.IA. And thereafter to various other airlines on behalf of defendant No,1. Hence the defendant No,1 is liable to pay a sum of Rs,9,42,848.77 to the plaintiff.
6. ' On the previous date Mr. N.K. Jatoi was asked to produce proof of the payment of the entire suit amount by the plaintiff. Consequently today he has produced the list of payments, the letter of the plaintiff showing the payments made to various airlines alongwith the receipts of those airlines, the receipts of various airlines and cash memo, etc. The genuineness of the receipts, letters etc. Cannot be disputed or denied. It is, however, submitted by Mr. Sadruddin Hudda that the receipts of certain payments claimed to have been made are not produced. The mere fact that the receipts of certain small amounts are not produced, does not make the alleged payments doubtful.
7. There can be no cavil with the proposition set out in the above rulings that attachment before judgment is not to be lightly ordered and that the Court has to satisfy itself before making any such order that the defendant is about to leave the country or dispose of his property with a to frustrate or delay the execution of the decree that may be passed against But it may be pointed out that such satisfaction can be deduced from the affidavits and from the surrounding circumstances of the case as well.
8. ' I am therefore satisfied that the defendants are intending to leave the country with intent to frustrate or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed againt them, and therefore I direct that defendants shall iurnish security in the sum of Rs,9,42,848.77 within a period of one month, failing which attachment before judgment shall be issued against defendant No,1 in respect of their assets and office premises and the passports of defendants Nos.2 to 7 shall be impounded.