Garnishee Proceedings Under CPC | Disputed Debt Cannot Be Summarily Adjudicated Without Leading Evidence: Bombay High Court

Bombay High Court, in a ruling delivered on October 6, 2026, held that a party failing to offer evidence before the trial court during garnishee proceedings cannot subsequently challenge the summary determination of a debt in an appeal.

A division bench of Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata observed that while Order XXI Rule 46C of the CPC contemplates a trial of disputed questions, the burden remains on the parties to proactively lead evidence, as settled by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin.

The appellant, Manjira Properties Pvt. Ltd., challenged an order passed by a single judge in an execution application that allowed the attachment of a debt allegedly payable by the appellant to the judgment debtor. The appellant contended that the amount in question was not a crystallized debt but a disputed contractual claim under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which allowed for the forfeiture of a mobilization advance due to the failure of land acquisition. The appellant argued that the trial court erred in summarily treating the expiry of the MOU as an automatic debt without adjudicating the contractual defenses raised.

The court was primarily called upon to determine whether a trial court can summarily determine a debt in garnishee proceedings under Order XXI Rule 46C CPC when the existence of the debt is contested by the garnishee. Further, the court addressed whether a party can challenge the summary nature of the proceedings in appeal after failing to offer evidence before the court of first instance.

Scope of Garnishee Proceedings

The court acknowledged that Order XXI Rule 46, 46A, and 46C of the CPC govern garnishee proceedings. These provisions require the existence of a clear, attachable debt due or accruing from the garnishee to the judgment debtor. The court noted the appellant's reliance on Food Corporation of India vs. Sukh Deo Prasad to argue that disputed claims cannot be converted into attachable debts without proper trial.

Requirement to Lead Evidence

The division bench emphasized that while the law provides for a trial of disputed questions under Order XXI Rule 46C, the onus is on the party raising the dispute to participate in the process by leading evidence. The court noted that the appellant, despite disputing the liability under the MOU, had elected not to offer evidence before the trial court.

Failure to Lead Evidence at Trial Stage

Referring to the principle laid down in Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin, the court underscored that a party who had an opportunity to lead evidence but elected not to do so is precluded from raising grievances regarding the lack of trial or the summary nature of the decision at the appellate stage. The court observed that the record clearly indicated the appellant's failure to offer evidence during the initial proceedings.

"A party who had ample opportunity to lead evidence before the First Court but failed to do so or elected not to do so, cannot raise a plea regarding evidence in Appeal."

The bench found no perversity in the impugned judgment of the trial court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, with the court noting that it was unnecessary to delve into the substantive contractual arguments regarding the MOU, given the procedural failure to lead evidence below. The interim application was also disposed of accordingly.

Date of Decision: 06 October 2026