Attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC is an extraordinary power that cannot be invoked mechanically; it requires strict proof that the defendant is actively attempting to dispose of or remove assets with the specific intent to obstruct or delay the execution of a potential decree.

ORDER:

Heard Mr. A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Rusheek Reddy K.V., learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. R.Sushanth Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for CBIC appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2, Mr. K.Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of P. Vidhyadhar Goud, learned counsel for respondent No.3, and Mr. Vivek Jain, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

2. The instant Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved of the order dated 10.11.2025, in I.A.No.1297 of 2025 in O.S.No.442 of 2025, passed by the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

3. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court rejected the I.A.No.1297 of 2025 filed by the petitioners under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking for an attachment before judgment.

4. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and respondents herein are the defendants before the Trial Court. For convenience, the parties are being addressed in respect of their status before the Trial Court.

5. The plaintiffs by filing the aforesaid I.A. have sought for a direction from the Court to direct the defendants to furnish a security to the tune of Rs.24,07,21,377/- to be deposited in the Court, failing which an order of attachment before judgment insofar as the defendants are concerned would be passed.

6. The facts in brief relevant for adjudication of the instant Civil Revision Petition are that the plaintiffs have filed a suit for recovery of money against the defendants. The plaintiffs entered into an agreement of sale in respect of certain agricultural land in Maheshwaram Village, Ranga Reddy District and registration of which was to be done after the money was transferred against the said agreement of sale. Meanwhile, certain Memorandum of Understandings (for short ‘MoUs’) were entered into between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2. The two MoUs entered into between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 was to be treated as composite transaction and it is contended that the money was also transferred treating the two agreements as composite one. The defendant No.1, meanwhile, demanded more money as he was developing another venture in respect of the land standing in the name of his son Mr. Vanga Siddharth Reddy (defendant No.3). Certain money further was also paid by the plaintiffs to defendant Nos.3 and 4. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs were waiting for registration of the land to be done. When it did not happen for a considerable period of time, the plaintiffs filed the suit.

7. The defendant No.1, in fact, had also given an undertaking that the whole amount along with interest at the rate of 36% per annum shall be paid, which too did not happen. Neither was any land given in lieu in terms of the agreement agreed upon. Meanwhile, certain criminal cases were also filed before the CCS, Hyderabad, which was registered as CRLP.No.231/2014. Though the said FIR is put to quashment vide CRLP.No.14885 of 2024 before the High Court, the same is still pending.

8. Meanwhile, however, the plaintiffs have filed the suit O.S.No.442 of 2025 against the defendants seeking for recovery of money along with damages. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs have also filed an I.A. seeking for issuance of an appropriate direction to the defendants to furnish a security to the tune of Rs.24,07,21,377/- by way of deposit as a security in the event of the plaintiffs succee