About to leave the country of dispose of his property with a view to frustrate or delay execution of decree that could be passed against him.

“Application under O.XXXVIII, R.5, CPC could only be granted when sufficient material was on record that defendants were planning to leave the country with a view to defeat the recovery of plaintiff’s claim. No such circumstance existed in the present case. Vague allegation about intentions that defendant would leave the country were not sufficient. Definite evidence was required to be led before the Court in support of such contentions. Court was required to satisfy itself that defendant was about to dispose of his assets, only then such order could be made. Merely by establishing a prima facie case attachment before judgment could not be granted unless necessary ingredients of Order XXXVIII, R.5, C.P.C had been established. Attachment before judgment was not to be lightly ordered and Court had to satisfy itself before making such order whether defendant was about to leave the country of dispose of his property with a view to frustrate or delay execution of decree that could be passed against him.”

2005 CLC 1270

PLD 2017 Lah. 689