TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to defendants to furnish security for the suit claim and if they failed to do so, for attachment before judgment. The Trial Court by its order dated 4.8.2000 dismissed the said application. It noted that though the plaintiff alleged that two post dated cheques given by the defendants towards payment of the bill amounts were dishonoured, it had neither disclosed the particulars of the said cheques, nor the dates of dishonour. It was of the view that merely making a bald statement that ₹ 99,200/- was due from the defendants was not sufficient to make out prima facie case, when defendants had denied the suit claim. 3. The said order was challenged in revision by the plaintiff. Before the High Court, the plaintiff pointed out that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasonable chance of a decree being passed in the suit against the defendant. This would mean that the court should be satisfied the plaintiff has a prima facie case. If the averments in the plaint and the documents produced in support of it, do not satisfy the court about the existence of a prima facie case, the court will not go to the next stage of examining whether the interest of the plaintiff should be protected by exercising power under Order 38 Rule 5CPC. It is well-settled that merely having a just or valid claim or a prima facie case, will not entitle the plaintiff to an order of attachment before judgment, unless he also establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets with the intention of defeati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the execution of any decree that may be passed against him, before power is exercised under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC. Courts should also keep in view the principles relating to grant of attachment before judgment (See - Prem Raj Mundra v. Md. Maneck Gazi, AIR (1951) Cal 156, for a clear summary of the principles.) 7. In this case, the suit claim was ₹ 99200/- The notice issued before filing the suit related to dishonour of two cheques for ₹ 22487/-. The particulars of the claim in the plaint were not specific. The trial court had rejected the application on the ground that plaintiff had failed to make out a prima facie case. It did not, therefore, examine the question whether defendant was attempting to defeat any decree that many ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
