Attachment Before Judgment application itself seems to have been allowed. The daily orders indicate that the application was numbered on 23.06.2025, posted on 27.06.2025, and allowed on the very same day. From the case status, it is evident that the said application was not listed on any subsequent date. Thus, the application was heard and decided completely without the appearance of the other respondents and without even perusing the Title of the Respondent before ordering attachment of the properties. 7. It is further submitted that the attachment order demonstrates a patent procedural irregularity in as much as the Attachment Before Judgment application has been allowed mechanically on the very first date of hearing without issuance of notice, without granting time to show cause, and without examining ownership or subjecting the encumbrance documents to test. Though the order purports to grant only a "conditional attachment", the application itself has been allowed and directed to be reflected in the registration records, thereby treating the conditional attachment as a final attachment, contrary to law and the express wording of the order. There has been clear suppression of material facts and fraud played upon this Tribunal by the 1st Respondent Bank, and for this reason alone, the application and the order of attachment deserve to be lifted / raised. The 1st Respondent Bank, being fully aware of the Petitioner’s ownership due to the earlier mortgage executed by the petitioners on 22.11.2023 in favour of the 1st Respondent Bank for the purpose of purchasing the property and the said loan amount was repaid by the applicants by way of Discharge Receipt dated 18.02.2025. But by
