The court reinforced the necessity of security for claims under Order XXXVIII Rule 5, affirming that a defendant's denial of the plaintiff's claim justified the attachment to protect the plaintiff's interests.

JUDGMENT :

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (CMA) arises out of an order passed by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad on 11.08.2025 in I.A.No.312 of 2025 in O.S.No.25 of 2025 filed by the respondent/plaintiff to pass an order of attachment before the judgment against the appellant/defendant by directing the appellant/defendant to furnish security to the satisfaction of the Suit claim amount of Rs.67,01,433/-.

2. The appellant is a defendant in a Suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff directing the appellant/defendant to pay an amount of Rs.67,01,433/- to the plaintiff and for award of future interest at 12% p.a. on the said amount till realization of the claim.

3. The respondent/plaintiff filed an Application/IA No.312 of 2025 in the said Suit under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and for a direction on the appellant to furnish security to the Suit claim.

4. By the impugned order, the Trial Court gave one last opportunity to the appellant to furnish security of Rs.67,01,433/- within 30 days from the date of the order, failing which the plaintiff/respondent would be at liberty to file a warrant for attachment before judgment of the properties of the appellant/defendant as mentioned in the impugned order.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the impugned order should be set aside as the Trial Court failed to consider the principles relevant to an order for attachment before judgment and for furnishing security for production of property as underlined under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC. Senior Counsel submits that the impugned order does not disclose any reason for directing the appellant to furnish security and also does not satisfy the tests of directing the appellant to furnish security as laid down by the Supreme Court.

6. Senior Counsel submits that an order to furnish security cannot be passed in a vacuum and without the plaintiff showing satisfactory cause as to why such a drastic order should be passed during pendency of the Suit.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the Suit claim is bona fide and that there was an immediate need for an order of security since the appellant denied the claim altogether. Counsel seeks to sustain the impugned order on the Trial Court disclosing sufficient reasons for furnishing of security.

8. We have heard learned Senior Counsel and learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered the material on record.

9. The respondent/plaintiff filed the Suit for a decree of Rs.67,01,433/- and for award of future interest on the decretal sum. The plaintiff filed an IA under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 read with section 151 of the CPC for a direction on the appellant/defendant to furnish security to the satisfaction of the Suit claim. On 13.02.2025, the Trial Court directed the appellant to furnish security for the Suit amount within 48 hours after receipt of notice or appear and to show cause as to why the appellant/defendant should not furnish the security. The matter was made returnable on 27.02.2025. The impugned order was passed on 11.08.2025 on a contested hearing and upon considering the grounds put forth by the appellant for resisting an order for security. The impugned order records that the appellant executed a Promissory Note on 26.05.2023 and obtained Rs.55 lakhs from the plaintiff.

10. The Promissory Note wa