Court denies attachment of immovable properties in money recovery suit. Criteria and evidence emphasized.

The court denied the petitioner's application for attachment of immovable properties under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 in a money recovery and deed cancellation suit. The court found insufficient evidence of loan transactions and a lack of prima facie case for an ad interim order. Emphasizing the importance of meeting legal criteria, the court directed the respondents to file an opposition affidavit for further examination. Compliance with procedural requirements and clear evidence were stressed for such a drastic legal remedy, with the case adjourned for additional submissions and comprehensive assessment.

---

---

Issues:
- Application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 for attachment of immovable properties.
- Claim for recovery of money and cancellation of a deed of gift.
- Allegations of loans and advances not repaid.
- Transfer of shares and subsequent refusal by the company.
- Alleged transfer of flats through a deed of gift.
- Prayer for attachment of specific properties.
- Arguments regarding unsecured creditor status and lack of disclosure.
- Legal provisions under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 and conditions for attachment.
- Requirement for a prima facie case for obtaining an ad interim order.

Analysis:

The petitioner filed an application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 seeking attachment of immovable properties in a suit for money recovery and cancellation of a deed of gift. The petitioner alleged that loans and advances were not repaid by the respondents, leading to legal action. The respondents transferred shares and flats, with subsequent complications in recording the transfers. The petitioner claimed that the transfer of flats through a deed of gift was an attempt to evade payment. Concerns were raised about further disposal of properties, prompting a request for attachment. The petitioner also sought injunctions to prevent any transfer or disposal of the mentioned properties.

The respondents argued that the petitioner failed to establish a valid claim and did not fulfill necessary conditions for attachment before judgment. They contended that the transfer of properties had occurred before the suit was filed, questioning the basis for attachment. Legal principles were cited to emphasize that attachment should not be granted mechanically to convert unsecured debts into secured ones. The respondents stressed the need for the petitioner to demonstrate a bona fide claim and an imminent risk of property disposal to warrant attachment.

Upon review, the court found that the petitioner did not sufficiently substantiate the loan transactions or demonstrate a prima facie case for an ad interim order. The court noted the lack of specific loan details and the timing of property transfers, indicating a failure to meet the required conditions for attachment. The court directed the respondents to file an affidavit in opposition, signaling a need for further examination before any decision on attachment. The court clarified that its current views were preliminary and subject to further scrutiny.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of meeting legal criteria and establishing a valid case for attachment before judgment. The court emphasized the need for clear evidence and compliance with procedural requirements to warrant such a drastic legal remedy. The case was adjourned for additional submissions and a more comprehensive assessment of the parties' positions.

---