ORDER A.N. Varma, J. - This is an application in revision directed against an order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge on 27-4-1978 dismissing an objection filed by the applicants against the sale of certain properties. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are these: The decree-holder opposite party filed a suit against the judgment-debtor applicants for the recovery of certain sums of money. During the pendency of the suit, by an order dated 22-8-75 certain properties belonging to (lie applicants were attached under O. 38, R. 5. C. P. C. Subsequently on 11-11-75 the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution of the decree-holder opposite party. Later on the suit was restored to its original number and was eventually decreed. After the suit was decreed, the decree-holder opposite party applied for the sale of the properties which had been attached before judgment on the basis of the order of attachment dated 22-8-75 referred to hereinabove. The judgment-debtor applicants Tiled an objection to the effect that the sale on the basis of the attachment dated 22-8-75 was illegal inasmuch as the said attachment had lapsed with the dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution and it was not automatically revived in law when the suit was restored to its original number. The court below relying upon the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1978 Andh Pra 200 held (hat the attachment order dated 22-8-75 automatically revived when the Suit was restored to its original number and consequently the attachment continued. In this view of the matter, the court below dismissed the objection of the applicant. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has urged that the view of the court below that the order of attachment dated 22-8-1975 automatically revived on the restoration of the suit is wrong and is opposed to the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 1972 All LJ 892 : ( AIR 1973 All 67 ). Learned Counsel for the applicant also invited my attention Id the provision of O. 38, R. 11-A (2) of the Civil P. C. as amended by the Civil P. C. (Amendment) Act, 1976. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant also invited my attention Id the provision of O. 38, R. 11-A (2) of the Civil P. C. as amended by the Civil P. C. (Amendment) Act, 1976. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite, party, on the other hand, invited my attention to an order passed by the court below on 6th July, 1976 by which the application of the defendant applicants to accept security in lieu of the attachment of the properties was rejected anti in the operative portion it was observed : "Considering all the circumstances of the case I think that it is not expedient in the interest of justice to release the immovable property. The application is hereby rejected." Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the court below is clearly wrong and is in the teeth of the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 1972 All LJ 892 : ( AIR 1973 All 67 ) which has laid down as follows: "On the dismissal of a suit in default the attachment before judgment automatically lapses and a fresh attachment is necessary on the restoration of the suit." This view appears to have been recognised and forwarded by the legislature and it has been consequently incorporated in R. 11-A (2) of O. 38 of the Civil P. C. The view of this court being that a fresh attachment is necessary on the restoration of a suit, we will have to see whether in point of fact, there was a fresh attachment in this case. I have already referred to the order passed by the court below on 6-7-76. Learned counsel for the opposite-parties conceded that apart from this order, there is no other order effecting any'fresh attachment. I have already referred to the order passed by the court below on 6-7-76. Learned counsel for the opposite-parties conceded that apart from this order, there is no other order effecting any'fresh attachment. The order of attachment before judgment is effected in accordance with the provisions of O. 38, R. 5 (I) C. P. C. which reads as follows : "Where at any Stage of a suit, the court is satisfied, by affidavit or otherwise, that the defendant, with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against him, - (a) is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property or, (b) is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, The court may direct the defendant, within a time to be fixed by it, either to furnish security in such sums as may be specified in lie order, to produce and place at the disposal of the Court, when required, the said property or the value of the same, or such portion thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the decree, or to appear and show cause why he should not furnish security." 5. It is, therefore, clear that the attachment takes place when the Court directs the defendant, within a time to be fixed by it either to furnish security in such sums as may be specified in the order or to produce at the disposal of the court, when required the said property or the value of the sain , or such portion thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the decree, or to appear and show cause why he should not furnish security. In my view, as a result of 1976 (quoted above) (sic) the order dated 6-7-1976 saying that it is not expedient in the interest of justice to release the property, the property in question does not automatically become attached as required under O. 38, 11. 5 of the Civil P.C. Even the courts below have not relied on the order dated 6-7-76 as an order by which the property in question was attached afresh. Under the circumstances, in my view, though it was necessary in law to reattach the property after the suit had been restored, in point of fact the property was not so re attached. 6. Under the circumstances, in my view, though it was necessary in law to reattach the property after the suit had been restored, in point of fact the property was not so re attached. 6. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Court below dated 27-4-1978 is set aside, it is, however, made clear that the property in question can be attached afresh and it will be open to the decree-holder opposite party to take appropriate steps in that respect. In view of the fact stated above, since I am allowing the revision on a technical point. I direct that the applicant shall not dispose of, in any manner whatsoever, the properties in question till 2nd April, 1979 when the parties will appear before the court below. The decree-holder will, during this period, take appropriate steps for the attachment of the properties, if he so desires. The parties will bear their own costs.