JUDGMENT R. Chandra, J. - This is a judgment-debtor's appeal against the order of the Civil Judge, Hardoi, dismissing his objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The facts of the case in brief are, that Phool Chand obtained a decree against Babu Ram and his son Phool Chand. That decree was put into execution (vide Execution Case No. 34 of 1966) . In that case, property was attached and sale proceedings were to be taken, but on 30th April, 1962 the execution case was dismissed in default of the decree-holder. On 8th May, 1962, the decree-holder moved an application for restoration of the execution case. That application was made under Order IX, rule 9 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court allowed that petition on 29th October, 1963, and also pointed out that the execution case had been dismissed on the basis of an incorrect office report. In the same order, the execution case was ordered to be restored to its original number. The decree-holder was directed to take steps in connection with the sale of the property. The judgment-debtor filed objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and contended that under law no attachment subsisted and the property could not be sold. It was urged that unless the property was attached afresh, no sale proceedings could be taken. This contention was repelled by the court below, and the objection was dismissed. Against that order, the present appeal is directed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Order XXI, rule 57 of the Code of Civil Procedure 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. Order XXI, rule 57 of the Code of Civil Procedure 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." This rule as amended by the Allahabad High Court reads "Where any property has been attached in execution of a decree and the court for any reason passes an order dismissing the execution application the attachment shall, in the absence of any order passed by the Court, be deemed to subsist for a period of fifteen days after the dismissal of the application for execution and no fresh attachment of the same property shall be necessary- if a fresh application for execution is made within such period of fifteen days. If no such application is made, the attachment shall cease : Provided that in the case of movable property the attachment shall not be continued after an order dismissing the execution application has been passed unless the decree-holder has given his consent in writing and there is in deposit with the Court on his behalf a sum of money sufficient to meet the expenses of the attachment during the extended period." 4. It is significant that the words occurring in the original rule "but by reason of the decree-holder's default" have been omitted front the amended rule. It specifically says "for any reason passes an order dismissing the execution application". The words in the rule are imperative. After the dismissal of the execution application, the attachment would remain alive only for a period of fifteen days. Even if the order of dismissal was passed by the court due to its own mistake, that would hardly make any difference. The scope of the amended rule teas been made quite wide. In the instant case, admittedly, no fresh execution application was moved within fifteen days of the dismissal of the earlier application. As stated earlier, the execution application was dismissed on 30th April, 1962, and was restored on 19th October, 1963. For the various reasons, the decree-holder could not avail of the earlier attachment which had come to an end under the operation of law. As stated earlier, the execution application was dismissed on 30th April, 1962, and was restored on 19th October, 1963. For the various reasons, the decree-holder could not avail of the earlier attachment which had come to an end under the operation of law. The view taken by the court below is clearly erroneous. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, and the order of the Civil Judge, Hardoi, dated 26th February, 1966, is set aside. He shall afford an opportunity to the decree-holder to take fresh steps for attachment and sale of the property, and proceed according to law. No order is made for costs.