Article 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure departs from these general rules with respect to claims for damages arising from the execution of security attachment orders. By eliminating the requirement of fault, the legislator establishes a form of strict liability for the plaintiff. Moreover, the defendant is exempted from filing a statement of claim, paying court fees, and observing ordinary procedural formalities; the court may decide the matter in an extraordinary session without holding a formal hearing; and the resulting judgment is deemed final regardless of the amount of damages awarded. The accumulation of these exceptional rules appears to lack a clear logical or legal justification and raises a fundamental question: what distinctive feature of claims for damages arising from security attachments warrants such a broad departure from the general principles of civil procedure? Furthermore, damages caused by the attachment of property are often intertwined with complex issues such as loss of profits and its distinction from speculative or potential gains—matters that inherently require full judicial scrutiny and careful evaluation of evidence. Accordingly, adopting an analytical and critical approach, this article challenges Article 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure and argues for its reform, emphasizing the necessity of subjecting such claims to the general rules of civil adjudication. As an alternative solution to safeguard the defendant’s interests, the article proposes expedited (out of turn) proceedings rather than the complete removal of procedural safeguards. Under the current legal framework, however, given the exceptional nature of Article 120, a restrictive interpretation is unavoidable. This entails limiting its application to cases where, first, the plaintiff’s failure in the main action has been established by a judgment, and second, the court issued the security attachment only after requiring the plaintiff to provide security for potential damages