Attachment before judgment requires a real prima facie threat to execution, not mere apprehension or disputed claims.

Attachment before judgment or a direction to furnish security requires a prima facie showing that the defendant is attempting to defeat an expected decree by removing, disposing of, or encumbering assets. Mere apprehension of future account freezing, reliance on GST-related proceedings, or bald allegations of non-payment is insufficient. On the materials placed, no concrete step to frustrate execution was shown, and the disputed return of goods and outstanding liability remained issues for trial. The court also noted that documents relied on by the plaintiffs had not been properly disclosed in the commercial suit despite the continuing duty of disclosure. The request for security and protective attachment was therefore declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to an order directing the defendants to furnish security, or in default to suffer attachment of bank accounts and restraint on alienation of properties, pending disposal of the suit.

Analysis: The relief sought was in the nature of attachment before judgment and required a prima facie showing that the defendants were attempting to defeat the decree by removing, disposing of, or encumbering assets. The Court noted that the plaintiffs relied on GST-related proceedings and an apprehended future freezing of accounts, but no material showed that the defendants' assets had been attached or that any concrete step had been taken to frustrate execution. The alleged return of goods and the rival claim regarding the outstanding amount remained matters for trial. The Court also found that documents relied upon by the plaintiffs had not been disclosed in the suit with leave, despite the continuing duty of disclosure in a commercial suit.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs failed to make out a prima facie case for security or attachment before judgment, and the application was not maintainable on the materials placed.

Final Conclusion: No protective order was warranted pending trial, and the request for securing the claimed sum was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: Attachment before judgment or security can be granted only on a prima facie showing of a real attempt by the defendant to obstruct or delay execution of a likely decree, not on mere apprehension or bald allegations.

---