The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of attachment before judgment, the effect of setting aside a decree on an attachment, and the cessation of attachment before judgment when an execution application is dismissed for default of the decree-holder.

1. These petitions are for revising the orders passed in execution in O.S. 300 of 1097 of the Munsiff's Court, Attingal, and in O.S. 242 of 1116 of the Munsiff's Court, Alleppey, respectively. The revision petitions raise certain important questions of law, and both of them were referred for decision by a Full Bench. Since the questions raised in both the cases were to some extent inter-related, they were heard together. The questions raised will also be considered and decided together.

2. In the case dealt with in C.R.P. 429 of 1124, the suit was dismissed on 3.6.1100. It was restored to file and again dismissed on 29.10.1107. In appeal, the trial court decree was reversed and the suit decreed on 24.11.1113. In execution of that decree, certain properties attached before judgment were proclaimed for sale when the revision petitioner intervened and objected to the sale of item 2 in the proclamation schedule. He stated that the proclamation was issued on the assumption that the property had been attached before judgment, that there was no such attachment, that even if there was such an attachment, it was not in force, that the same should be deemed to have been raised when the suit was dismissed twice by the trial court, and that for these and other reasons the execution was to be stopped as regards item 2. The execution court held that though the trial court dismissed the suit it was decreed by the High Court and hence the attachment before judgment had revived, and that there is no substance in the objection that the attachment ceased with the dismissal of a prior execution application. The claim petition was dismissed and the claimant has filed this revision petition.

3. In C.R.P. 562 of 1124, the plaintiff had obtained an ex-parte decree on 11.6.1116. In execution of that decree certain properties were attached and the Amin filed his report of attachment on 20.2.1117. The ex¬parte decree was set aside on 5.6.1118 and the suit restored to me. The suit was then decreed in plaintiff's favour on 28.6.1120. In the meanwhile, i.e., on 11.2.1119, the revision petitioner had obtained a sale of the attached property from the defendant. The decree-holder, on 10.4.1122, applied for sale of the property without a fresh attachment. He relied on the attachment of 1117. The claimant objected to the liability of the property as he had become the owner of the same at a time when there was no attachment on the property. The execution court dismissed the claim petition and this petition is to revise that order.

4. The argument of the learned Advocates appearing in both the cases were heard. The questions that arise for consideration are: (1) whether an attachment before judgment, which ceases to be in force with the dismissal of the suit, will revive when the decree dismissing the suit is subsequently reversed and a decree in the plaintiff's favour passed; (2) whether an attachment which had been effected in execution of a decree, and which should be deemed to have been raised with the setting aside of that decree would revive when a decree was subsequently passed in favour of the plaintiff; and (3) whether an attachment before judgment shall cease to be operative, when the execution application seeking to execute the decree pursuant to that attachment is dismissed for default of the decree-holder as contemplated in 0.21, R. 57 C.P.C.

5. First Question: The relevant rule that has to be considered in this connection is R. 9 of 0.38 C.P.C. (Indian). It reads as follows:

"Where an order is made for attachment before judgment, the Court shall order the attachment to be withdrawn when the defendant furnishes the security required, together with security for the costs of the attachment, or when the suit is dismissed".

There is difference of opinion as to the revival of the attachment before judgment if the suit dismissed by the trial court is decreed by the appellate court in reversal of the decision of the trial court.

6. A Full Bench of the