admittedly payable by the second respondent/garnishee to the first respondent on completion of the contract work. The plaintiff/appellant has to satisfy this Court that he has a prima facie case for grant of an interim injunction restraining the garnishee from disbursing the amount and that the balance of convenience is also in his favour. In this connection, it has to be pointed out that in order to safeguard the right of the plaintiff/appellant during the pendency of the suit, the learned single Judge recorded the undertaking given by the first respondent to the effect that he will not alienate or encumber the property owned by him at Hyderabad. However, as admitted by the first respondent himself, the property at Hyderabad was mortgaged with the State Bank of Hyderabad and there is a charge over that property. It is also seen from the records that the State Bank of Hyderabad disbursed a loan in favour of the first respondent repayable in 20 years. It is also seen that the first respondent had repaid substantial amount of Rs.92 lakhs out of Rs.95 lakhs towards the loan and only a sum of Rs.36 lakhs remains to be repaid, which is evident from the certificate issued by the State Bank of Hyerabad. Therefore, even though the property owned by the first respondent at Hyderabad was offered as a security, in view of the fact that it was subjected to mortgage and there is a charge over that property, there is a little bit of cloud in the property which was offered as a security. As there is a charge over the property to the tune of Rs.36 lakhs and taking into consideration that the plaintiff/appellant had made out a prima facie case inasmuch as word 'Sub-contract' is mentioned in the TDS Certificate issued by the first respondent, without dwelling deep into the matter or without expressing any opinion on merits, as the matter has to be decided only in the trial, we hold that instead of directing the second respondent/garnishee not to disburse the entire amount of Rs.1,10,00,000/- payable to the first respondent, it is sufficient if the second respondent/garnishee is directed not to disburse a sum of Rs.35 lakhs alone to the first respondent out of Rs.1,10,00,000/- so that interest of both the parties will be protected. Therefore, we direct the second respondent/Garnishee not to disburse a sum of Rs.35 lakhs out of Rs.110 lakhs payable to the first respondent, however, the remaining amount can be disbursed to the first respondent. The second respondent/garnishee is further directed to deposit the sum of Rs.35 lakhs by means of a fixed deposit drawn in the name of Registrar General, High Court, Madras in any one of the nationalised banks so that interest will accrue periodically during the pendency of the suit and it will be beneficial to both the parties. On such deposit, the Registrar General, High Court, Madras is directed to keep the fixed deposit receipt for a sum of Rs.35 lakhs till the disposal of the suit. The fixed deposit will be initially for a period of three years, with an interest cumulative option for renewal till the disposal of the suit. It is needless to state that the undertaking already given by the first respondent in so far as the property at Hyderabad will continue till the disposal of the suit.
