https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308693 Attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure is described as a procedural mode for exercising jurisdiction under Section 94, not as a separate source of power. Omission to issue the Rule 5 notice does not by itself nullify the attachment, because the defect concerns the manner of exercise of jurisdiction rather than its existence. Where the prohibitory order substantially achieves the object of preventing alienation and the affected party acquiesces without challenge, the attachment is treated as an irregularity and not a nullity. The order therefore cannot be ignored as void ab initio. en-us Fri, 11 Aug 1944 00:00:00 +0630 Thu, 13 Jul 2023 15:46:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308693 Attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure is described as a procedural mode for exercising jurisdiction under Section 94, not as a separate source of power. Omission to issue the Rule 5 notice does not by itself nullify the attachment, because the defect concerns the manner of exercise of jurisdiction rather than its existence. Where the prohibitory order substantially achieves the object of preventing alienation and the affected party acquiesces without challenge, the attachment is treated as an irregularity and not a nullity. The order therefore cannot be ignored as void ab initio. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 11 Aug 1944 00:00:00 +0630 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308693