Woodroffe, J.:— I think that this appeal fails, and that the obvious interpretation of the sections and the rules, to which we have been referred, is that the attachment in S. 64 of the present Code means an attachment which has been made in the manner prescribed in O. 21, R. 54.
2. The words which were originally in S. 276 of the Code of 1882, and which have been omitted from the present S. 64 are not material and have been omitted as being mere surplusage. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Mookerjee, J.:— I agree.
V.B/R.K
3. Appeal dismissed.