Attachment before judgment requires specific proof of intent to defeat execution, not vague allegations or unsupported claims.

Relief under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC is available only where the plaintiff shows, through affidavit or other material, that the defendant is about to dispose of or remove property with intent to obstruct or delay execution of a decree. Vague allegations are insufficient; the plaintiff must plead particulars and the grounds of belief. On the stated facts, the claim that the defendant was contemplating alienation of assets lacked adequate supporting material, and the alleged acknowledgment of liability was found incorrect. The essential requirement of dishonest intention to defeat execution was not established, so attachment before judgment or security could not be ordered.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff made out a case for furnishing security or attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: Relief under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 can be granted only if the defendant is shown, by affidavit or other material, to be about to dispose of or remove property with intent to obstruct or delay execution of a decree. Vague allegations are insufficient, and the plaintiff must disclose particulars and the grounds of belief. On the facts pleaded, the assertion that the defendant was contemplating alienation of assets was unsupported by adequate material. The alleged acknowledgment of liability was also found to be incorrect, and the essential ingredients of the rule, including dishonest intention to defeat execution, were not established.

Conclusion: The plaintiff failed to satisfy the requirements for attachment before judgment or for an directing security, and the application was rightly rejected.

---