This appeal is against the Judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Ootacamund, dismissing the plaintiff’s suit, wherein was claimed inter alia relief of declaration of plaintiff’s title to the suit properties, and possession and mesne profits. The appeal raises the interesting question as to when an attachment of immovable property could be said to have been made to make void a private alienation of the property under section 64 of the Civil Procedure Code, and whether all the requirements of Order 21, rule 54 of the Civil Procedure Code, as amended in this State have to be complied with for the attachment to have the effect of invalidating private sales. The question does not present much difficulty, and, as we see it, is covered by a catena of decisions of this Court and other Courts all requiring punctilious adherence to the requirements of Order 21, rule 54 of the Civil Procedure Code. As learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent sought to distinguish particularly the decisions of this Court and draw a line of distinction as to mandatory and directory provisions in procedure, we shall examine the question a little more in extenso than will be str