Further security was unwarranted where properties remained in receivers’ custody and protected by injunction.

The plaintiff sought security for its plaint claim of approximately ₹7,26,26,893.81, contending that the defendant’s assets were insufficient and that any future decree might become inexecutable.

The plaintiff had previously sought judgment upon admission for the entire claim. By judgment dated 29 June 2026, the Court decreed ₹4,39,76,326 towards principal on admission, while relegating the balance principal and interest to trial; the order had attained finality.

By an earlier order dated 22 December 2025, the defendant had been directed to secure the plaint claim, after deduction of ₹90,00,000, but failed to do so.

On 29 January 2026, Joint Receivers were appointed over two immovable properties of the defendant situated at Paschim Medinipur.

The plaintiff consequently sought an order directing sale of those properties and deposit of the sale proceeds with the Registrar, Original Side, as security.

The defendant opposed the application, submitting that the properties were already in the symbolic possession of the Receivers, were therefore incapable of being dealt with without the Court’s permission, and had a higher actual value than the valuation relied upon by the plaintiff.

Whether the defendant should be directed to furnish further security for the balance principal and interest claim relegated to trial, including by sale of the two properties under receivership

Whether the plaintiff had established circumstances warranting protection under the principles governing attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Whether the prior acknowledgment letter and post-dated cheque constituted a subsequent development justifying an order for further security after the judgment on admission

The Court applied the principles underlying Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, under which security or attachment before judgment requires material showing that the defendant intends to obstruct or delay execution of a decree by disposing of or removing property; a mere apprehension or existence of an unpaid claim is insufficient.

The Court also applied the principle that an order directing furnishing of security is discretionary and must be made judiciously on the facts of each case.

Property over which a Court-appointed Receiver has taken symbolic possession is custodia legis, i.e., under the custody and control of the Court, and cannot be dealt with by the defendant without leave of the Court.

Existing injunctions restraining dealings with the properties further protected the plaintiff’s position.

The Court held that the plaintiff had not demonstrated any new or imminent threat that the defendant would dispose of the properties or abscond so as to defeat execution of a possible decree. Accordingly, the statutory conditions associated with attachment before judgment had not been established.

The acknowledgment letter and post-dated cheque relied upon by the plaintiff were already available when the Court passed the judgment on admission dated 29 June 2026; they had therefore already been considered when the balance claim was left for trial and did not constitute a subsequent development.

Further, the two properties were already under the symbolic possession of Court-appointed Receivers and were therefore custodia legis. The defendant could not deal with them without the Court’s express permission, and existing injunctions also continued to restrain dealings with the properties.

In these circumstances, the Court found no immediate requirement for further security in respect of the balance claim pending trial.

It held that no further security was required at that stage for the balance principal and interest claim relegated to trial, since the plaintiff had shown neither a subsequent development nor an imminent threat to the properties or execution of a future decree.

The application, IA No. GA-COM/1/2025, was accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs.