Restoration of execution proceedings revives a subsisting attachment, making transfers made during the attachment void against the decree-holder.

Under Order 21 Rule 57 CPC, dismissal of an execution application for default ordinarily ends the attachment unless the court orders otherwise, but restoration of the execution proceedings revives the ancillary attachment for the period when it was effective. Because the private transfers were made while the attachment still subsisted and before dismissal for default, Section 64 CPC rendered those alienations void against the decree-holder. Authorities dealing with transfers made in the gap between dismissal and restoration were therefore inapplicable on these facts.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on restoration of an execution application dismissed for default, an attachment levied before dismissal stands revived so as to invalidate private transfers made while the attachment was subsisting.

Analysis: Under Order 21 Rule 57 of the Code of Civil Procedure, attachment ceases on dismissal for default unless continued by order of the court. The decision distinguished cases where dismissal is set aside in appeal or revision from restoration on application, and held that restoration revives the execution proceedings and ancillary orders. Since the transfers in question were made during the subsistence of the attachment and before dismissal for default, the restoration necessarily restored the attachment for the period when it was effective. Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure therefore rendered the private transfers void against the decree-holder. The contrary view of the High Court could not stand, and authorities dealing with transfers made during the interval between dismissal and restoration were not applicable on these facts.

Conclusion: The attachment was revived on restoration of the execution case, and the alienations made while the attachment subsisted were void against the decree-holder.

---