These Civil Revision Petition are filed against the order dated 22.12.2008 in IA.No.517 and 516/2007 in OS.No.40/2004 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, holding that since the suit is restored to file, the order of attachment passed before the dismissal of the suit would automatically get revived and for proper adjudication, the wife of the petitioner/proposed 2nd defendant is a necessary party to be impleaded in order to find out as to whether the transfer effected in the interregnum period of dismissal and restoration of the suit was fraudulent or not.

2. The undisputed facts are that the respondents/Plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of money against the petitioner and pending the suit, in IA.No.110/204, an order of attachment of the suit property was effected by order dated 12.4.2004 under Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC. The suit was dismissed for default on 16.3.2005 and the respondents filed an application on 12.4.2005 in IA.No.303/2007 for restoration of the suit and the suit was restored by order dated 30.12.2007. In the mean while, the petitioner sold the property under attachment to his wife on 5.4.2005 under a registered sale deed and based o