https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306573 The court dismissed the application for furnishing security or attachment before judgment in a loan recovery case. The plaintiff failed to prove the defendant's intention to dispose of assets to obstruct decree execution as required by Order 38, Rule 5 of CPC. The court highlighted the need for specific allegations and evidence, emphasizing that mere general assertions are insufficient. The plaintiff's lack of proof and the property being already mortgaged led to the application's dismissal with costs. en-us Wed, 02 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Feb 2023 17:54:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306573 The court dismissed the application for furnishing security or attachment before judgment in a loan recovery case. The plaintiff failed to prove the defendant's intention to dispose of assets to obstruct decree execution as required by Order 38, Rule 5 of CPC. The court highlighted the need for specific allegations and evidence, emphasizing that mere general assertions are insufficient. The plaintiff's lack of proof and the property being already mortgaged led to the application's dismissal with costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 02 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306573