Bavuddin Shaib Judgment-Debtor v. Arunachalla Mudali Decree-Holder .

1. We agree with the lower Court that the attachment before judgment did not cease to exist because the decree-holder (among his numerous execution petitions) applied once for arrest of the judgment-debtor and that application was dismissed for default.

2. We think that O. 21, R. 57 of the CPC, makes an attachment cease on the dismissal of an execution application only if that attachment had been made “in execution of” the decree and not when it had been made before judgment in view to a possible execution of a decree which might probably be passed thereafter.

3. The other contention of the appellant, namely, that by the petitioners having applied in another execution petition to be allowed to share rateable in the proceeds of the sale of these properties, if they were brought to sale by another decree-holder, who had also attached them in execution of his decree, the present decree-holder converted the attachment before judgment into an attachment in execution, is also not sustainable.

4. Such conversion can take place only if the decree-holder applies for sale of the properties in execution of his own decree. Whether such conversion will take place even in such a case may be questioned on the authority of Ganesh Chandra Adah v. Banwari Lal Boy(1), but it is unnecessary to decide that question for the purpose of this case.

5. The third contention that by the decree-holder's conduct he must be deemed to have abandoned all rights under the attachment before the judgment is, again, not supported by anything on the record.

6. The view of the lower Court, therefore that no fresh attachment is necessary to entitle the decree-holder to bring the properties to sale in execution is correct, and we dismiss the appeal with costs.

S.N/R.K

7. Appeal dismissed.