#Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC

The Delhi High Court set aside a ₹15 lakh pre-judgment security order, ruling that mere apprehension of asset disposal, a defendant's residence outside the jurisdiction, and evasive denials do not satisfy the stringent requirement under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC to prove a concrete intent to defeat decree execution. The decision raises the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs seeking attachment before judgment in commercial suits.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that pre-judgment attachment of property under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC must be proportionate to the claimed amount, setting aside an order attaching ₹1.1 crore worth of land for a ₹24.17 lakh suit. The decision reinforces that courts must ensure attachments do not exceed the financial stakes of the dispute, protecting defendants from disproportionate asset seizures.