Substitution of attached immovable property is allowed only where the rules expressly permit replacement, not by general equity.

Rules governing possession of attached property under SAFEMA permit substitution only within the express limits set by the statute. For movable property, substitution is allowed only in specified situations under Rule 4. For immovable property, Rule 5 allows replacement only in the limited contingencies stated in sub-rules (5) and (6). There is no general power to replace attached immovable property with a demand draft or fixed deposit merely because equivalent value is offered, and prior orders cannot override the statutory scheme. The request for substitution was therefore rejected as outside the rules.

---

---

Issues: Whether an immovable property confirmed as attached could be substituted with a demand draft or fixed deposit of equivalent value during pendency of the appeal.

Analysis: The Rules governing taking possession of attached properties were examined. The scheme of Rule 4 permits substitution only in relation to movable property in specified situations, while Rule 5 dealing with immovable property allows replacement only in limited contingencies expressly provided in sub-rules (5) and (6). The Tribunal held that there is no general power to substitute attached immovable property with a demand draft or fixed deposit outside those express situations, and that prior orders relied upon by the appellant did not justify a direction contrary to the statutory framework.

Conclusion: The request for substitution was not maintainable and was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Substitution of attached immovable property can be allowed only where the governing rules expressly permit it, and no general equitable power exists to replace such property with a demand draft or fixed deposit.

---