sufficient resource to acquire the properties. So also, the documents produced by defendant Nos.2 to 4 i.e., document No.10, copy of the balance sheet of defendant No.4 for the year 2012-2013, copy of the balance sheet of defendant No.4 for the year 2008-09, copy of the bank statement of defendant No.2 at document No.6 shows that defendant Nos.3 and 4 companies as per the document No.5 and document No.8, Memorandum of Understanding in between defendant No.2 and defendant Nos.3 and 4, they have purchased landed properties as shown in the application in the name of defendant No.2. The Court has observed that when that is the case, the contention of the plaintiff that defendant No.2 has already entered into an agreement of sale with third parties in respect of the landed properties shown in the applications cannot be accepted at this stage without holding full-fledged trial and all these aspects can only be decided in the course of trial. Further, except item Nos.8 and 20, all the remaining landed properties are not standing in the name of defendant No.1. If the application is allowed and the properties are attached, much hardship would be caused to the defendants. Hence, the Court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not made out a prima face case
