A party who forgoes evidence at trial cannot raise evidentiary pleas on appeal.

The appeal challenged an order allowing a judgment creditor’s application to attach a debt allegedly payable in connection with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

The appellant argued that the MOU created no clear or admitted debt: the money received was a mobilization advance, and the appellant claimed a right to forfeit it under Clause 1.8 because the other party had not taken further steps toward the contemplated land acquisition.

The Court noted that the appellant had received the money, no land had been acquired, the MOU was unregistered, and the appellant had not offered to lead evidence before the trial court.

Whether the appellant could challenge the attachment in appeal by raising a plea concerning the disputed contractual debt after not offering to lead evidence before the trial court.

Whether the order attaching the alleged debt warranted appellate interference.

Order XXI Rule 46C of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, contemplates a trial of disputed questions arising in garnishee proceedings.

The Court relied on Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148, for the principle that a party that had an opportunity to lead evidence before the first court but failed or elected not to do so cannot raise a plea regarding evidence in appeal.

It also followed that principle in Sailam B.V.B.A. v. Helios Jwelery Pvt. Ltd., Appeal (L) No. 9162 of 2026.

The Court treated the appellant’s failure to offer evidence before the trial court as decisive.

Because disputed questions in garnishee proceedings may be tried under Order XXI Rule 46C, the appellant could not, having failed to pursue that evidentiary course, raise the evidentiary plea in the appeal.

The Court accordingly found no perversity warranting interference and expressly left the appellant’s other contentions undecided.

Interim Application No. 1658 of 2026 was disposed of as no longer surviving.