KAUL, J. :- This second appeal originally came up for hearing before a Division Bench consisting of Wanchoo, and Bhargava, JJ., For reasons to be stated presently they referred it to a Full Bench.

2. The facts so far as they are material are as follows :

In a suit brought by one Mt. Asghari Begum against Abdul Hamid and others some property belonging to the defendants was attached before judgment under O.38, R.6, Civil P.C. The claim was ultimately "decreed and Asghari Begum put in an application for execution of her decree. She prayed that the property attached before judgment be sold for satisfaction of her debt. This application was dismissed for default. Thereupon Asghari Begum put in another application for execution which was also dismissed in 1935. The last application for execution was made by her on the 30th April 1938 and therein the prayer for sale of the property attached before judgment was repeated. In due course the decree was transferred for execution to the Collector under S.68, Civil P.C. At this stage the judgment-debtors preferred an objection to the execution of the decree under S.47, Civil P.C. It was contended on their behalf that, inasmuch as, the two previous applications for execution had been dismissed for default of the decree-holder, the attachment which was effected before judgment ceased to subsist in view of the provisions of Order 21, Rule 57, Civil P.C. In reply, the decree-holder relied on the decision of this Court in - Akhey Ram v. Basant Lal, 46 All 894 and contended that Order 21, Rule 57 did not apply to attachments effected before judgment. The objections were thrown but. Accordingly the judgment-debtor went in appeal before the Additional Civil Judge of Bulandshahr, but were unsuccessful. Hence this second appeal.

3. When the case came up for hearing before a Division Bench in this court, it was argued that the learned Judges who decided - Akhey Rams case, (46 All 894) had for the view taken by them relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in - Venkatasubbiah v. Venkata Seshaiya, 42 Mad 1 which was subsequently overruled by the Full Bench decision of the same court in - Meyappa Chettiar v. Chidambaram Chettiar, 47 Mad 483 (FB). It was further pointed out that there was a sharp cleavage of judicial opinion on this point. Our own Court and. the High Courts of Calcutta and Patna had taken one view, while the view taken in 47 Mad 483 (FB) was followed in Bombay, Sind And Nagpur. Thereupon the Division Bench referred this appeal to a Full Bench because (1) reliance in - Akhey Rams case was placed on the decision of Madras High Court in - Venkatasubbiahs case, 42 Mad 1 which was later overruled by a Full Bench decision of the same court; (2) there was difference of opinion among various High Courts on the true scope of Order 21, Rule 57 Civil P.C. and (3) the general importance of the question raised by the objectors.

4. It will be noticed that even at the time when the decision in - Akhey Rams case (46 All 894) was given there was no unanimity of judicial opinion on the question raised in the present case. But a Division Bench of this court (Sulaiman and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.) on a consideration of the provisions of Order 21, Rule 57 Civil P.C. and of the various provisions contained in Order 38, Civil P.C. came to the conclusion that Order 21, Rule 57 did not apply to attachments effected before judgment, but that its operation was limited to attachments effected in execution of a decree. It is noteworthy that they came to this conclusion independently of the decisions of other Courts. It is true that having arrived at that conclusion on a consideration and careful examination of the provisions of the Code they further observed : "There are several cases in support of the view which we have taken", and then mentioned a number of cases including the case of - Venkatasubbiah, 42 Mad 1 which was later overruled by a Full Bench of the same court.

5. The decision in - Akhey Rams case (