The appellant purchased the property from the second respondent herein who is the judgment-debtor on 80. The first responded decree holder, had obtained the decree against the second respondent in O.S.8501/71. He filed E.P. 1458/75 for execution of the said decree. In the E.P.No.12. 75 the attachment of the properties under dispute was ordered. Subsequently on 26. 77 the said E.P. was closed with the direction that the attachment should continue. Later on, the first respondent filed E.P.72/82. In view of the direction to continue the attachment in the order dated 26. 77, the attachment is deemed to be continued in this E.P. also. The E.P.72/82 was dismissed for default on 22. 92, without any direction for continuation of the order of attachment subsequently, the first respondent filed E.P.2032/83 and brought the properties for sale. In this E.P. the appellant has filed the claim petition stating that the appellant had purchased the property on 3. 80 with notice of the order of attachment and hence he is a bonafide purchaser for value.

2. The further contention of the appellant is that thought by order dated 26. 77 the order of attachment was directed to be continued, wh