Meyappa Chettiar Petitioner (Counter-Petitioner). v. Chidambaram Chettiar (Petitioner).

As the Full Bench has now decided that the attachment by the decree-holder, in O. S. No. 153 (124) of 1914 was not subsisting, when the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition applied to execute his decree and enforce his security, the application for rateable distribution after the dismissal of E. P. No. 182 of 1916, was not regular and the lower Court's order cannot be supported. We allow this Civil Revision Petition with costs in this Court, including costs before the Full Bench.

An objection was taken to the validity of the Full Bench judgment, on the ground that it was pronounced at a time when Mr. Justice Coutts Trotter was absent on deputation, in connection with the enquiry of the Bar Committee. As that learned Judge did not resign his appointment, he did not cease to be a Judge of this Court, during his temporary absence on other service, and the cases quoted in Mahomed Bibee and Mully Lal Sen Gywal v. Desikar Roy(1), and Akil v. Asad-un-nisa and Chinnu Pillai v. Kalimuthu Chetti(2), are therefore not in point. The objection to the judgment of Mr. Justice Coutts Trotter being treated as a part of the judgment of the Full Bench thus fails.

K. V. S.Petition allowed..