Author and reviewer: CA Nikhil Gupta · Last reviewed 11 October 2026
13 rule-level pages with procedural controls and source gates.
Finin2min practical explanation · 11 October 2026
Order XXXVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure addresses exceptional safeguards designed to protect the effectiveness of a future decree. An attachment before judgment is not an automatic recovery order merely because a plaintiff states that money is owed.
The court may use Rule 1 where its specified grounds of evasive conduct or removal exist, including departure from jurisdiction to obstruct or delay execution. The court may require appearance/security and follows procedural rules for arrest and default; distinguish these powers from ordinary criminal arrest.
A plaintiff must support the claim that the defendant is about to dispose of property or remove it from jurisdiction with the intent to obstruct or delay execution. The order must direct security or appearance to show cause, and identify the property or value; Rule 5(4) addresses invalidity of attachment ordered without complying with Rule 5(1).
When security is not furnished, the court may order attachment under Rule 6. Claims by third parties, removal of attachment after security and other safeguards follow the corresponding rules. The defendant must have a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis and property identification.
A pre-decree attachment does not wipe out prior third-party rights, and the Code provides restrictions including the position of agricultural produce and Small Cause Courts. Read these restrictions with State High Court amendments, local practice and execution provisions.
A supplier sues for ₹42 lakh on unpaid invoices and alleges that the buyer is selling a warehouse. A sale advertisement without evidence of an intention to defeat execution may not satisfy Rule 5. The supplier should put verified particulars before the court; the judge can demand security or ask the buyer to show cause, rather than treating filing of a suit as sufficient for attachment.
Yes, but only under the exceptional conditions and procedural safeguards of Order XXXVIII.
No. The underlying suit and entitlement to a decree remain to be proved.
Use the current official instrument, portal or regulator publication before acting.
This page is a structured implementation summary, not the operative legal text. Portal or process acceptance of a filing does not by itself establish legal compliance - the underlying classification, authority, evidence and timeline still have to be independently correct. Where the facts are contested, high-value, or time-barred if delayed, verify the current position with the official source and, where appropriate, a qualified professional before acting.