Attachment before judgment requires clear proof of intent to defeat execution; credible surrounding facts can justify security and attachment.

Attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rules 5 and 6 CPC is available only on clear, specific and properly verified material showing that the defendant is about to dispose of or remove property with intent to obstruct or delay execution of a prospective decree. Mere financial difficulty, disposal of property, or the filing of a suit is insufficient. The court may consider conduct immediately before the suit and surrounding circumstances, and may infer intent from credible facts. On the material described, including alleged attempts to sell all properties at an inadequate price, closure of business in India, business activity in Pakistan, and an expressed wish to migrate there, the requirements were treated as satisfied and security before judgment was directed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant had made out a case for security and attachment before judgment under Order 38, Rules 5 and 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The rule permits attachment before judgment only where the Court is satisfied that the defendant is about to dispose of or remove property with intent to obstruct or delay execution of any decree that may be passed. Mere disposal, removal, financial difficulty, or the filing of a suit is not enough. The Court must be satisfied on clear material, and the affidavits must be specific and properly verified. The conduct of the parties immediately before the suit and the surrounding circumstances may be considered, and an inference as to intention may be drawn from those facts. Here, the claim was supported by written documents, the defendants had allegedly attempted to sell their entire properties at an inadequate price, had closed their business in India, had started business in Pakistan, and had expressed a wish to migrate there. The evidence was treated as credible and not vague.

Conclusion: The conditions for security and attachment before judgment were satisfied, and the application was allowed.

Final Conclusion: Security was directed for the plaintiff's claim, and in default the specified properties were ordered to be attached before judgment.

Ratio Decidendi: Attachment before judgment can be granted only on a reasoned satisfaction, based on clear and specific material, that the defendant's intended disposal or removal of property is with the object of obstructing or delaying execution of the prospective decree.

---