Skip to content
LAW LIBRARY.Online
Central Act · India · ORDER XXXVIII — Arrest and Attachment Before Judgment

Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC Where defendant may be called upon to furnish security for production of property

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 · Edition: User-supplied Law Library CPC page, attributed to India Code as on 10 January 2026; retrieved 6 November 2026

(1) Where, at any stage of a suit, the Court is satisfied, by affidavit or otherwise, that the defendant, with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against him,—

(a) is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property, or

(b) is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court may direct the defendant, within a time to be fixed by it, either to furnish security, in such sum as may be specified in the order, to produce and place at the disposal of the Court, when required, the said property or the value of the same, or such portion thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the decree, or to appear and show cause why he should not furnish security.

(2) The plaintiff shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, specify the property required to be attached and the estimated value thereof.

(3) The Court may also in the order direct the conditional attachment of the whole or any portion of the property so specified.

1[(4) If an order of attachment is made without complying with the provisions of sub-rule (1) of this rule, such attachment shall be void.]

Source document ↗

Judgments on Order XXXVIII Rule 5

LOK 2026 (10) Ker. 285 · High Court of Kerala

Muraleedharan v. Prem Kumar

Equivalent citations: 2026 KER 84539

SubjectAttachment Before Judgment, Civil Procedure, Transfer of Property
JudgesJustice Easwaran S
ActsCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Order XXXVIII Rules 5 and 8; Order XXI Rule 58; Order XLIII Rule 1A); Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Sections 3 and 53)

A claim under Order 38 Rule 8 CPC is confined to the claimant’s independent title; whether the transfer is fraudulent under Section 53 of the TP Act must be decided in a suit, and the Full Bench in Verizon Builders is impliedly overruled.