1. The learned Subordinate Judge ought to have pronounced an opinion on the question whether the attachment made in 1907 was subsisting when the new execution application for sale was made in 1911.
2. The District Munsif considered that attachment, though pending on 1st January 1909 came to an end by coming into force of the new Code of Civil Procedure on that date, that is, the coming into force of O. 21, R. 57, contained in that Code.
3. If the District Munsif was right in that view, the Execution Application of 1911 which prayed for sale of the property could not be granted (as it stood as the petition ought to have prayed for both attachment and sale.)
4. However, it is unnecessary to remand this case for a finding on that question, as it is a pure question of law which we could decide ourselves.
5. We are clear that O. 21, R. 57, which provides that, on the dismissal of an execution application, the existing attachment on the attached properties shall cease, can only apply to orders of dismissal passed after the Act came into force.
6. The other ground on which the District Munsif dismissed the application as barred has been dealt with by the learned Subordinate Judge, and we are prepared to follow Ghulam Nasir-ud-din v. Har Deo Prashad(1) which is relied on by the Subordinate Judge.
7. The Subordinate Judge was, therefore, right in remanding the execution case to the District Munsif for disposal on the merits; and we dismiss the appeal against that remand order with costs.
S.N/R.K
8. Appeal dismissed.