SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(HP) 96

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
ROMESH VERMA, J.
Surender Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
Pankaj Bansal And Anr. - Respondents
CMPMO Nos. 173 of 2023, 238 of 2025
Decided On : 31-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Aditya Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Vipin Pandit, Advocate

A court may order a defendant to furnish security to prevent them from obstructing enforcement of potential judgments, contingent upon establishing a prima facie case.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 38 Rule 5 - Petition for attachment before judgment - Plaintiff claimed recovery of Rs.8,73,183/- as arrears of rent, asserting intent to obstruct execution of decree by the defendant, who had shifted business and sub-leased premises without consent - The Court confirmed the validity of orders directing security for both suits brought for arrears of rent - The court noted the necessity of a prima facie case by the plaintiff, highlighting past and anticipated actions of the defendant to evade judgment execution. (Paras 2-4, 26-30)

(B) Jurisdiction - The High Court, exercising Article 227 powers, does not act as an appellate forum; it ensures compliance with legal principles. (Paras 39-42)

Facts of the case:
Two petitions involved suits by plaintiffs for recovery of significant arrears of rent, with the defendant claiming a lack of tenant-landlord relationship and presenting defenses against the attachment orders for not providing security.

Findings of Court:
The lower courts found that plaintiffs made a prima facie case that the defendant intended to evade potential decrees.

Issues: Whether the plaintiffs established a prima facie case necessitating the attachment of the defendant's property and the character of the relationship between the parties.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court reaffirmed that credible evidence indicating intent by the defendant to obstruct justice justified the lower courts' orders for security under Order 38 Rule 5.

Result: Petitions dismissed, orders upheld.

JUDGMENT :

Romesh Verma, J.

Since common question of law and facts are involved in these petitions (CMPMO Nos. 173/2023 & 238/2025), therefore, they were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by common judgment. However, to maintain clarity, facts of CMPMO No. 173/2023 are taken into consideration in detail at first.

CMPMO No. 173/2023

2 By medium of CMPMO No. 173/2023, the petitioner/defendant, has laid challenge to the order dated 24.2.2023, as passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No. II, Solan, District Solan, whereby an application filed by the plaintiffs/respondents under the provisions of Order 38 Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC, in Civil Suit No. 37/2018, has been allowed and the defendant/petitioner has been directed to furnish security to the amount of Rs.8,73,183/- on or before 25.3.2023, failing which the share of defendant/petitioner in his building, at ground floor, shop No. 3, situated at Mauja Jawahar Park Solan will be attached.

3 The plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit (Civil Suit No. 37/2018) against the defendant/petitioner for recovery of Rs. 8,73,183/- as arrears of rent and interest thereupon upto 28.2.2018 and further future interest @ 12% p.a. on arrears of rent till full and final payment. It was averred in the plaint that plaintiff No.2, Maya Bansal, is owner of a building known as Pooja Emporium. Plaintiff No.1 Pankaj Bansal, being attorney of plaintiff No.2, inducted the defendant/petitioner as tenant in a shop, situated in Pooja Emporium building, as has been highlighted with pink colour in site plan, in the year 2000 at monthly rental of Rs.12,000/-, which was statutorily increased w.e.f. 28.6.2005 to Rs.13,200/-, w.e.f. 28.6.2010 to Rs.14,520/-, w.e.f. 28.6.2013 to Rs.15,972/- and thereafter w.e.f.28.6.2016 to Rs.17,569/-. It was submitted in the plaint that the defendant/ petitioner has purchased another shop at Circular Road Solan, Near Modgil Ashram and shifted his business to said shop in the month of July, 2012. The shop in question has been sub-let by the defendant/petitioner to Raj Rani without implied consent of the plaintiffs/respondents, qua which, rent petition has also been filed.

4 It was averred that the defendant/petitioner has not paid monthly rent for the last more than 6 years. Though rent was demanded from the defendant/petitioner, however he disclosed that he has shifted his business and intended to purchase the shop and for that negotiations were going on, thus, assurance was given to the plaintiffs/respondents that he would make the payment of rent very soon and promised to vacate the shop occupied by him as a tenant under the plaintiffs/respondents. Therefore, in these circumstances, the plaintiff filed suit against the defendant/petitioner, as aforesaid.

5 The defendant/ petitioner contested and resisted the plaint by raising preliminary objections qua maintainability, cause of action, suit being bad for want of better particulars, suppression of material facts, valuation etc. On merits, stand was taken by the defendant/respondent that he is not tenant of the plaintiffs/respondents and the story, as projected by the plaintiffs/respondents is incorrect. It was averred that the plaintiffs never let out any premises to him in their building known as Pooja Emporium. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendant in any manner. Therefore, plea of the plaintiffs qua subletting of the premises to Ms. Raj Rani is wrong and baseless. It was averred that Raj Rani is mother of the defendant, but the defendant has nothing to do with the suit premises.

6 Precisely, defence was taken by the defendant/petitioner that there is a building known as Pooja Emporium belonging to the plaintiffs on one side and the other side of this building, there is a building belonging to the government i.e. DRDA, wherein milk booth of Society is located. Both these buildings join together and as a result of which, a space has come up under the project





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top