Attachment before judgment requires a prima facie claim and real intent to defeat execution, not mere asset movement.

Attachment before judgment is an extraordinary remedy under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC and cannot be granted merely to secure an unsecured claim. The plaintiff must establish a bona fide prima facie claim and a reasonable basis to infer that the defendant is removing or disposing of property with intent to obstruct or delay execution of a decree. Mere shifting of machinery or business assets, without more, is insufficient. The High Court's interference with the trial court's refusal of attachment was therefore unsustainable, and the dismissal of the attachment application was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether an order of attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure could be sustained when the plaintiff had not established a prima facie case and the only circumstance relied on was that the defendant was shifting machinery and business assets.

Analysis: Attachment before judgment is an extraordinary and drastic remedy meant to prevent frustration of an eventual decree, and it cannot be used to convert an unsecured claim into a secured one. Before such relief can be granted, the plaintiff must show a bona fide and prima facie claim and also a reasonable basis to infer that the defendant is about to remove or dispose of property with the intention of obstructing or delaying execution of a decree. Mere shifting of business premises or machinery, without more, is not enough. Where the trial court refused relief for want of a prima facie case, the revisional court ought not to have interfered merely because the defendant was shifting its assets.

Conclusion: The attachment-before-judgment order was not justified, and the interference by the High Court was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The order of the High Court was set aside and the trial court's dismissal of the application for attachment before judgment stood restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Attachment before judgment can be granted only when the plaintiff establishes both a prima facie claim and a real apprehension that the defendant is removing or disposing of property with intent to defeat execution of the decree.

---