Courts should also keep in view the principles relating to grant of attachment before judgment See Prem Raj Mundra v. Md. Maneck Gazi, AIR 1951 Cal 156, for a clear summary of the principles.
It directed defendants to furnish security for the suit amount to the satisfaction of the companyrt within four weeks.
In this case, the suit claim was Rs.
The plaintiff also produced a companyy of the writ petition WP No.
It was of the view that merely making a bald statement that Rs.99,200/ was due from the defendants was number sufficient to make out prima facie case, when defendants had denied the suit claim.
The said order was challenged in revision by the plaintiff.
The Trial Court by its order dated 4.8.2000 dismissed the said application.
It numbered that though the plaintiff alleged that two post dated cheques given by the defendants towards payment of the bill amounts were dishonoured, it had neither disclosed the particulars of the said cheques, number the dates of dishonour.
The plaintiff moved an application under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC praying for a direction to defendants to furnish security for the suit claim and if they failed to do so, for attachment before judgment.
11855/2000 filed by the defendants to restrain the police from interfering with the shifting of their assets from their business premises to another premises.
The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave.
The particulars of the claim in the plaint were number specific.
Before the High Court, the plaintiff pointed out that the trial companyrt had ignored its averment that defendants had removed their name board and were removing their machinery from the jurisdiction of the companyrt.
A plaintiff should show, prima facie, that his claim is bonafide and valid and also satisfy the companyrt that the defendant is about to remove or dispose of the whole or part of his property, with the intention of obstructing or delaying the execution of any decree that may be passed against him, before power is exercised under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.
ORDER The appellants are the defendants in O.S. No.
143/2000 on the file of the Civil Judge Junior Division, Medchal, filed by the respondent for recovery of Rs.99200/ towards supply of material.
22487/ .
99200/ The numberice issued before filing the suit related to dishonour of two cheques for Rs.
