The court emphasized that attachment before judgment requires credible evidence of intent to obstruct execution, and failure to consider relevant documents constitutes a jurisdictional error.

ORDER :

1. Heard M/s. Mukkera Sahithi Sri Kavya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 03.06.2024 passed in I.A.No.929 of 2023 in O.S.No.37 of 2023 by I Additional District Judge at Karimnagar.

FACTS :

3. The petitioner is plaintiff and the respondents are defendants. He filed the aforesaid suit vide O.S.No.37 of 37 of 2023 against the respondents for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,63,15,000/- towards principal and interest. Along with the said suit, the petitioner had filed an application vide I.A.No.929 of 2023 under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC seeking attachment before judgment on the following grounds:-

i. The petitioner and respondents are known to each other since long time and defendants offered to sell their house site plot admeasuring 400 sq.yards in Sy.Nos.42 and 44 situated in Upparapalli Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (for short, ‘subject plot’), for total consideration ofRs.1,00,00,000/-.

ii. They have received an amount of Rs.90,00,000/- and the balance amount was agreed to receive at the time of registration of the subject plot.

iii. They have also executed an agreement of sale dated 25.02.2020 to the said effect.

iv. They have postponed the said registration on one pretext or other. Thereafter, they failed to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner by receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/-.

v. They have made a new proposal stating that the above land is given for development to third parties and offered to return the amount to the petitioner.

vi. They have agreed to pay Rs.1,30,00,000/- as per the market value, but they kept on postponing the same. .

vii. Finally, respondentmNo.2 issued two cheques forRs.30,00,00,000/- (Rs.15 Lakhs each) bearing Nos.540437 and 540438 dated 28.06.2023 and the same were dishonoured on presentation.

viii. Therefore, according to the plaintiffs, defendants have to pay an amount of Rs.1,30,00,000/- towards principal amount and Rs.33,15,000/- towards interest. Thus, they have filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of Rs.1,63,15,000/- covering principal and interest.

ix. The respondent No.1 having immovable property, house site Plot No. No.15 admeasuring 318.21 sq.yards and Plot No.19 admeasuring 311.99 sq.yards in Sy.Nos.41/P, 42/P and 44/P situated at Upparapalli Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District under schedule-A property of petition schedule property and Respondent No.2 is also having immovable property i.e., house site Plot Nos.23 and 24 admeasuring636.42sq.yards in the same survey numbers under Schedule–B property.

x. Both the respondents are trying to sell the aforesaid properties to third parties to evade said amount and defeat the decree to be passed in the aforesaid suit.

xi. Therefore, the petitioner filed the aforesaid application seeking attachment before judgment.

4. Respondents filed counter opposing the said application contending as follows:-

i. The petitioner herein filed the aforesaid suit on false and baseless grounds.

ii. They are not liable to pay any amount to the petitioner herein.

iii. As per the agreement, sale consideration was Rs.52,00,000/-.

iv. On 21.08.2006, the petitioner herein paid Rs.28,00,000/- as advance. Subsequently, he breached the contract. As such, they could not execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner herein.

v. On 17-08-2009, they entered into another agreement with regard to the same property, wherein, they received remaining sale consideration of Rs.26,00,000/- and reduced the same into writing. However, there was a land dispute.

vi. On 05.08.2016, they executed another agreement in favour of the petitioner herein wherein, the respondents agreed to register the land by receiving balance sale consideration.

vii. On 20.03.2022, the petitioner herein got convened a panchayat wherein respondent No.2 gave two blank signed cheques and blank non-judi