ABDUL HAMID Vs. KARIM BUX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS plaintiffs second Civil Appeal has been referred to the Full Bench on account of the importance of a question of law involved in the case. The question involved is whether on the dismis sal of a suit in default the attachment be fore judgment automatically lapsed and a fresh attachment was necessary on the res toration of the suit, or whether on the res toration of the suit the attachment previous ly made is revived or is survived.

(2.) SMT . Muradan and her husband Nasib Ullah had purchased a house on 16-1-47. The plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit for recovery of certain sum of money against Nasib Ullah in the year 1951 and on an application made got the half share of Nasib Ullah in the house attached before judgment on 11-11-51. The suit was there after dismissed for default but was subse quently restored and ultimately decreed. In execution of the decree the half share of Nasib Ullah was sold and purchased by the plaintiff-appellant. The sale was confirmed on 28-10-59. The appellant claimed to have taken possession on 6-5-60.

(3.) ORDER 38, R. 6 of the Civil Proce dure Code authorises a Court to attach be fore judgment the property of the defendant hi case the Court is satisfied that the defendant in order to delay or defeat the execu tion of a decree that may be passed against him is about to remove or dispose of his property and has failed to furnish the re quired security. Order 38, Rule 9 is the subject-matter of interpretation which is in these words:-