JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - The decree-holder is the Petitioner. In Money Suit No. 19 of 1954 in the Court of the Munsif, Jeypore, an attachment for the disputed land was effected on 18-8-1954 before judgment. The suit was dismissed on 9-7-1955. No specific order was passed withdrawing the attachment when the suit was dismissed. After a chequered career the suit was ultimately decreed in part by the District Judge on 25-4-1960. In the meantime on 29-4-1958 the legal representatives of the Judgment-debtor had transferred the attached land by a registered sale-deed (ext. 1) in favour of the opposite party. In E.P. No. 31 of 1961, the decree-holder wanted to sell the attached property. A fresh attachment was effected on 25-5-1961 as directed by the Court. On 10-7-1961, the opposite party filed an application under Order 21, Rule 58, CPC in M.J.C. No. 67 of 1961. The objection was allowed by the learned Munsif of Jeypore by his order dated 30-10-1961. The Civil Revision has been filed against this order. 2. Mr. P.V.B. Rao contends that the attachment before judgment, which ceased to be in force with the dismissal of the suit, will revive when the decree dismissing the suit was subsequently reversed by the same Court or by the appellate Court, and this revival will be in force from the date on which the attachment before judgment was effected. To appreciate the contention, it is necessary to examine the scope of Order 38, Rule 9, Civil of Civil Procedure which lays down: Where an order is made for attachment before judgment, the Court shall order the attachment to be with-drawn when the Defendant furnishes the security required, together with security for costs of the attachment, or when the suit is dismissed. It has been held that the words "the Court shall order the attachment to be withdrawn" are merely directory and not mandatory. In other words, even if no clear and specific order withdrawing attachment is passed by the Court, the attachment would cease to operate with the dismissal of the suit. An argument is advanced on the basis of the wordings in Order 21, Rule 57, Code of Civil Procedure, that in the absence of any specific order, the attachment subsists and does not cease to operate. An argument is advanced on the basis of the wordings in Order 21, Rule 57, Code of Civil Procedure, that in the absence of any specific order, the attachment subsists and does not cease to operate. Order 21, Rule 57 lays down: Where any property has been attached in execution of a decree but by reason of the decree-holder's default the Court is unable to proceed further with the application for execution, it shall either dismiss the application or for any sufficient reason adjourn the proceedings to a future date. Upon the dismissal of such application the attachment shall cease. Emphasis is laid on the underlined words and a distinction is sought to be drawn between "the attachment shall cease" and "the Court shall order the attachment to be withdrawn". It is emphasised, in the first case, the attachment automatically ceases while the second case requires volition and application of judicial mind on the part of the Court and a specific order is necessary. The argument is without any substance. With the dismistal of the suit, no further proceedings continue. It is elementary that when the parent proceedings have come to an end, the ancillary and incidental proceedings must necessarily come to an end. The argument that the words "shall order the attachment to be withdrawn" are directory, is sound. The conclusion is irresistible that the attachment ceases to operate with the dismissal of the suit even in the absence of any specific order on the part of the Court. 3. Mr. Rao contends that the proceedings in appeal are only continuation proceedings in the suit and the decree by the appellate Court must be taken as the decree in the suit and that the words "when the suit is dismissed" mean "when the suit is "dismissed by the final Court". Mr. Rao's contention is based on a Full Bench decision reported in Thampi Md. Abdul Khadir v. Padmanava Pillai AIR 1952 T.C. 414 . (F.B.). 4. The leading authority on the point is a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court reported in Balaraju Chettiar v. Masilamani Pillai AIR 1930 Mad 514. Mr. Rao's contention is based on a Full Bench decision reported in Thampi Md. Abdul Khadir v. Padmanava Pillai AIR 1952 T.C. 414 . (F.B.). 4. The leading authority on the point is a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court reported in Balaraju Chettiar v. Masilamani Pillai AIR 1930 Mad 514. Their Lordships observed that the object of attachment before judgment was to satisfy any decree which might be passed in the suit was the decree passed by the trial Court and not the appellate decree, and for this purpose the theory that the 'Proceedings in appeal are only continuation of proceedings in the suit is not to be applied in the context of the provision of Order 38, Rule 9. Despite the fact, in Annapurna Patrani and Others Vs. Lakshmana Kara and Another a Division Bench observed that though the value of AIR 1930 Mad 514 has been weakened by another Full Bench of that Court reported in Thavvala Veeraswami Vs. Pulim Ramanna and Others, stands as good law in Madras. The consensus of authorities in India seems to be in support of this view. Thavvala Veeraswami Vs. Pulim Ramanna and Others, discusses the position with regard to a suit, dismissed for default, subsequently restored to file. Their Lordships held that all the interim orders passed till the disposal of the suit would revive with the restoration of the suit. Though in principle, it is difficult to make any distinction between as lit decreed in appeal and a suit received after restoration, stil Balaraju Chettiar Vs. Masilamani Pillai and Others which holds the field in Madras, is directly applicable to the facts of this case. The later Full Bench decision is not directly applicable and I express no view on it. AIR 1930 Mad 514 has been subsequently followed by a full Bench of the Mysore High Court reported in AIR 1955 Mys 95, dissenting from AIR 1952 T.C. 414 : AIR 1958 AP 216 is also in the same line. The dictum also prevails in Calcutta High Court Abdul Rahaman v. Amin Sharif ILR 45 Cal. 780. 5. Dattatraya Baliram Naik and Others Vs. Rambhabai and Others, and Valli Ammal Arumughom Ammal Vs. Narayan Panicker and Others, are pertinent to a question under Order 21, Rule 57, CPC and have no direct bearing on the point in issue. 6. The dictum also prevails in Calcutta High Court Abdul Rahaman v. Amin Sharif ILR 45 Cal. 780. 5. Dattatraya Baliram Naik and Others Vs. Rambhabai and Others, and Valli Ammal Arumughom Ammal Vs. Narayan Panicker and Others, are pertinent to a question under Order 21, Rule 57, CPC and have no direct bearing on the point in issue. 6. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that upon the dismissal of the suit, the attachment before judgment ceases under Order 38, Rule 9 Civil Procedure Code, even though the Court does not pass an order withdrawing it. Even though the suit is decreed by the appellate Court, the attachment, originally effected, does not revive. The sale by the legal representatives of the judgment debtor under ext. 1 on 29-4-1958, is subsequent to the withdrawal of the attachment when no attachment order subsisted and is not affected by the subsequent attachment after the decree in appeal. The objection of the opposite party under Order 21, Rule 58 was rightly upheld. 7. The revision fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances, parties to bear their own costs throughout. Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed