TRIVEDI, J. (for himself and on behalf of Singh, J.) :- This plaintiff's second Civil Appeal has been referred to the Full Bench on account of the importance of a question of law involved in the case. The question involved is whether on the dismissal of a suit in default the attachment before judgment automatically lapsed and a fresh attachment was necessary on the restoration of the suit, or whether on the restoration of the suit the attachment previously made is revived or is survived.

2. Smt. Muradan and her husband Nasib Ullah had purchased a house on 16-1-47. The plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit for recovery of certain sum of money against Nasib Ullah in the year 1951 and on an application made got the half share of Nasib Ullah in the house attached before judgment on 11-11-51. The suit was thereafter dismissed for default but was subsequently restored and ultimately decreed. In execution of the decree the half share of Nasib Ullah was sold and purchased by the plaintiff-appellant. The sale was confirmed on 28-10-59. The appellant claimed to have taken possession on 6-5-60.

3. The contesting defendant-respondent Karim Bux claimed to have acquired Nasib Ullah's share