Parties Must First Oppose Pre-Judgment Property Attachment Notice Before Trial Court Instead Of Invoking Article 227: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the high court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked in a routine manner to challenge a show cause notice for attachment of property under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC, when an effective statutory remedy is available before the trial court. The Court observed that the power under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC is a “drastic and extraordinary power” which must not be exercised mechanically, but at the same time held that parties cannot bypass the procedure prescribed under the CPC and directly approach the High Court without first filing objections before the trial court.The provision deals with “attachment before judgment,” a remedy intended to secure the plaintiff's claim where the court is satisfied that the defendant may dispose of or remove property to obstruct execution of a possible decree. Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari dismissed a plea challenging a show cause notice directing the defendants to furnish security for the suit amount, failing which the property specified in the petition was liable to be attached. Challenging the notice, the petitioners argued that the power under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC had been exercised mechanically and relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Raman Tech. & Process Engg. Co. v. Solanki Traders, (2008) 2 SCC 302 which held that attachment before judgment should not be used to convert unsecured debts into secured debts or to coerce settlements.Refusing to interfere, the Court noted that only a show cause notice had been issued and no final order of attachment had yet been passed. Observing that the petitioners had an adequate opportunity to file objections before the trial court and rely on the principles laid down in Raman Tech. & Process Engg. Co. (supra) in support of their objections to the attachment proceedings, the Court observed:“There is no dispute on the settled legal position as in Raman Tech. & Process Engg. Co. (supra) but here only the notice has been issued to the petitioners, so, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have the opportunity to file the objections and may also place reliance on the judgment in Raman Tech. & Process Engg. Co. (supra) before the learned Trial Court. Approaching directly to this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India without availing the statutory remedy available under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC shall not be encouraged by-passing the remedy under CPC. So, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India. It is settled in law that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India is a supervisory jurisdiction which is not to be invoked in a routine manner but only in exceptional circumstances.”The High Court accordingly dismissed the petition and directed the trial court to consider any objections filed by the petitioners expeditiously and in accordance with law. Case Title: M/s. V. Digitals & 2 Others v. M/s. Baba FlexCase Number: Civil Revision Petition No. 1095 of 2026Counsel for Petitioner: Sri P.S.P. Suresh KumarClick Here To Read/Download Order

Parties Must First Oppose Pre-Judgment Property Attachment Notice Before Trial Court Instead Of Invoking Article 227: AP High Court

Ritika Verma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Parties Must First Oppose Pre-Judgment Property Attachment Notice Before Trial Court Instead Of Invoking Article 227: AP High Court

Ritika Verma

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers