CR-3462-2026 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-3462-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.04.2026 ABVB through ABVB Steel Company ...Pe,,oner Versus M/s Seerat Concast and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the pe,,oner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present revision pe,,on has been preferred by the plain,ff of Commercial Suit No. 20-2025 ,tled ‘ABVP Steel Company vs. M/s Seerat Concast & another’ assailing that part of the composite order dated 30.03.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Commercial Court presided by learned Addi,onal District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby the objec,ons filed by the third party, namely M/s Bharat Steel Industries, under Order XXXVIII Rule 8 CPC were allowed, and the property belonging to the said firm was ordered to be released from a?achment before judgment. 2. The principal grievance of the pe,,oner is that the learned trial Court erred in releasing the property of M/s Bharat Steel Industries despite the specific plea that the alleged re,rement of defendant No.2 from the said firm was fraudulent and engineered to defeat the plain,ff’s claim. It is contended that the trial Court ought to have con,nued the a?achment or, at the very least, kept the objec,ons pending for adjudica,on aAer framing issues regarding the genuineness of the re,rement deed. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the pe,,oner and perused the record, this Court finds no merit in the present revision pe,,on. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.24 12:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3462-2026 (O&M) [2] 4. At the outset, it is to be no,ced that the jurisdic,on of this Court under Ar,cle 227 of the Cons,tu,on / Sec,on 115 CPC (as applicable) is supervisory and not appellate. Interference is warranted only where the order impugned suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdic,onal error. A plausible and reasoned view taken by the trial Court, even if another view is possible, does not call for interference. 5. The scheme of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC makes it clear that a?achment before judgment is an extraordinary remedy intended to prevent a defendant from defea,ng the decree that may ul,mately be passed. However, such a?achment cannot be used as a tool to create a security interest in respect of property, which does not belong to the defendant. The provision is preven,ve in nature and not puni,ve. 6. In the present case, the learned trial Court has recorded a categorical finding that the property in ques,on stands in the name of M/s Bharat Steel Industries, which is not a party to the suit and is a dis,nct legal en,ty for the purposes of the present proceedings. The dispute in the suit is purely between the plain,ff and the defendants arising out of alleged commercial transac,ons, and admi?edly, there is no privity of contract between the plain,ff and the said third party. 7. The conten,on of the pe,,oner that defendant No.2 con,nued to have an interest in the partnership assets, or that her re,rement was fraudulent, has rightly been held by the trial Court to be a ma?er requiring detailed evidence. The Court below has correctly observed that such an issue cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings under Order XXXVIII Rule 8 CPC. 8. More importantly, even if the allega,on of fraud is assumed, the remedy of the plain,ff lies elsewhere. A challenge to a transfer or YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.24 12:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3462-2026 (O&M) [3] transac,on as being fraudulent is governed by Sec,on 53 of the Transfer of Property Act and requires substan,ve proceedings. The summary mechanism of a?achment before judgment cannot be converted into a forum for adjudica,ng complex ques,ons of ,tle, fraud, or validity of partnership transac,ons. 9. The learned trial Court has also relied upon the se?led principle that a?achment before judgment cannot extend to property, which did not belong to the defendant on the date of ins,tu,on of the suit, and that rights of bona fide third par,es cannot be prejudiced in such proceedings. This approach is in consonance with se?led law and does not suffer from any legal infirmity. 10. It is equally significant that the trial Court has safeguarded the rights of the plain,ff by expressly gran,ng liberty to pursue appropriate remedies in accordance with law for challenging the alleged re,rement/transfer as fraudulent. Thus, no prejudice has been caused to the pe,,oner. 11. The argument that the a?achment ought to have been con,nued merely on the basis of suspicion of fraud cannot be accepted. A?achment before judgment cannot be sustained on conjectures, par,cularly when it affects the property of a non-party. To permit such a?achment would amount to expanding the scope of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC beyond its statutory limits. 12. The reasoning assigned by the learned trial Court is cogent, legally sound, and based on correct apprecia,on of the statutory provisions as well as the material on record. No jurisdic,onal error, perversity, or material irregularity has been demonstrated so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdic,on. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.24 12:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3462-2026 (O&M) [4] 13. Consequently, the present revision pe,,on is dismissed. Pending applica,ons, if any, also stand disposed of. 23.04.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.24 12:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document