Back
No Shortcuts to the High Court: AP HC Insists on Trial Court Remedies First
In a ruling that reinforces procedural discipline in civil litigation, the dismissed Civil Revision Petition No. 1095 of 2026 on . Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari held that defendants challenging a under must first raise objections before the trial court, rather than leaping straight to the High Court's supervisory powers under .
The case pits defendants M/s. V.Digitals and two others against plaintiff M/s. Baba Flex in a pending commercial suit before the .
From Suit to Show Cause: The Spark of the Dispute
The underlying suit, O.S. No. 57 of 2026, involves a commercial dispute where M/s. Baba Flex sought pre-judgment attachment of the defendants' property. The trial court responded by issuing a under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC, directing the defendants—petitioners here—to furnish security for the suit claim or risk attachment of property owned by the second defendant.
Instead of responding to the notice, the petitioners filed this CRP directly under Article 227, arguing the notice was issued mechanically. This bypassed the opportunity to contest it at the trial level, prompting the High Court's scrutiny.
Petitioners Cry Foul, But High Court Points to Procedure
Counsel for the petitioners, , argued that Order 38 Rule 5 powers are extraordinary and must not be invoked routinely. Heavily relying on the Supreme Court's caution in
Raman Tech. & Process Engg. Co. v. Solanki Traders
((2008) 2 SCC 302), he highlighted that such powers are "drastic and extraordinary" and should not be used
"
."
The intent, he said, was to prevent the notice's coercive leverage in the suit.
No counsel appeared for the respondent, M/s. Baba Flex, leaving the arguments one-sided but the procedural issue front and center.
Drawing the Line: Notice vs. Attachment, Remedy vs. Bypass
Justice Tilhari acknowledged the Supreme Court's settled law from Raman Tech. , agreeing the power aims to thwart defendants from disposing of or removing assets to dodge decrees—not to secure unsecured debts or force settlements. However, a key distinction emerged: the trial court had issued only a , not a final attachment order.
The judge emphasized that petitioners retain "the opportunity to file the objections and may also place reliance on the judgment in
Raman Tech.
before the learned Trial Court.
"Bypassing this
under Order 38 Rule 5 to invoke Article 227's
—which is reserved for"
"—was deemed unacceptable."Approaching directly to this Court under Article 227... without availing the
... shall not be encouraged," the order stated.
This aligns with broader commentary on preventing routine High Court interventions, ensuring trial courts handle initial challenges expeditiously.
Key Observations
"The power under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC is a . Such power should not be exercised . It should be used sparingly and strictly in accordance with the Rule."
"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..."
"Approaching directly to this Court under Article 227 of without availing the available under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC shall not be encouraged by-passing the remedy under CPC."
"The jurisdiction under Article 227 of is a which is not to be invoked in a routine manner but only in ."
Dismissal with Directions: Back to Trial Court
The CRP was dismissed, with no costs ordered. Petitioners were directed to file objections to the notice, and the trial court was urged to consider them
"in accordance with law, with due opportunity to the concerned parties expeditiously."
Pending miscellaneous petitions stand closed.
This decision underscores a practical gatekeeping role for High Courts, preserving trial court autonomy while safeguarding against misuse of attachment powers. For future civil suits involving potential asset flight, parties now have clearer marching orders: respond at the base level first, or risk procedural rebuff from above.
