ORDER L. Manoharan, J. 1. Both the Civil Revision petitions arise from the orders in the execution of the decree in O.S 646 of 1989. 2. Revision petitioner in C.R.P.2002 of 1993 filed E.A.176 of 1992 under O.21 R.58 CPC and the revision petitioner in C.R.P. 2006 of 1993 filed E. A. 179 of 1992 under O.21 R.58 CPC. The said E.As were dismissed by orders dated 8.7.1993. The said orders are under challenge in these CRPs. These C.R.Ps. are disposed of by this common order as common question arises for determination in both the Civil Revision Petitions. 3. First respondent instituted O.S.646 of 1989 before the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Kottayam against respondents 2 and 3 for realisation of the money. Pending the suit, as per an order under O.38 R.5 CPC the property of the revision petitioner in C.R.P 2002 of 1993 was attached. And the property of the revision petitioner in C.R.P. 2006 of 1993 also was attached before judgment under O.38 R.5 CPC. The suit was later decreed. On learning that the execution is being taken out against their properties, petitioners filed petitions under O.21 R.58 CPC. Both of them claimed right over the property as per sale deeds executed by the third respondent. They maintained that their properties are not liable to be proceeded against in execution of the decree in the said suit. Petitioners would allege that though the claim petitions came up on several occasions, the first respondent did not file any objection. Later, they allege that the E.P. was dismissed as not pressed. On the date of dismissal of the E.P. itself the claim petitions filed by the petitioners were also dismissed. The impugned order reads: "E.P. dismissed. So EA also dismissed without prejudice to parties right if any". 4. It was contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that, it was illegal for the court to dismiss the claim petitions merely because the E.P. was dismissed. According to him, the attachment being one under O.38 R.5 CPC, the same will not cease to exist when the E.P. is dismissed. He sought to make a distinction between an attachment in execution and an attachment before judgment In short his contention is with respect to an attachment under O.38 R.5 CPC, O.21 R.57 CPC has no application. According to him, the attachment being one under O.38 R.5 CPC, the same will not cease to exist when the E.P. is dismissed. He sought to make a distinction between an attachment in execution and an attachment before judgment In short his contention is with respect to an attachment under O.38 R.5 CPC, O.21 R.57 CPC has no application. Therefore, according to the learned counsel the attachment would continue in spite of the dismissal of the E.P., consequently it was obligatory for the lower court to adjudicate the claim, that having not done the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Reliance was made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners on the decision in Arumughom Ammal v. Nayanar Panicker ( 1962 KLT 264 -FB) in support of the aforesaid contention. Learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that as per O.38 R.11 A, O.21 R.57 CPC will apply to an attachment under O.38 R.5 CPC also. 6. In the decision in Arumughom Ammal's case ( 1962 KLT 264 - FB) it is held that O.38 R.11 does not have the effect of transforming an attachment before judgment into an attachment in execution and deem it as such for the purpose of O.21 R.57. Consequently it was held that the dismissal of execution application for default does not put an end to attachment before judgment. 7. O.21 R.57 CPC enjoins that when the execution court passes an order dismissing the execution petition the court shall direct whether the attachment shall continue or cease, and shall also indicate the period up to which such attachment shall continue or the date on which such attachment shall cease. Sub-rule (2) states that if the court omits to give such direction, the attachment shall be deemed to have ceased. There is no case to the effect, while dismiss the E.R the court has made any direction as to the attachment. Therefore as per sub-rule (2) of R.57 of O.21 CPC the attachment should cease. 8. Now the moot question is whether the O.21 R.57 CPC will apply in the case of attachment before judgment. As noticed Arumugham Ammal's case ( 1962 KLT 264 -FB) states that the dismissal of the E.P. for default will not put to an end to attachment before judgment. After the decision of Arumughom Ammal's case( 1962 KLT 264 -FB) R.11A was incorporated in O.38. As noticed Arumugham Ammal's case ( 1962 KLT 264 -FB) states that the dismissal of the E.P. for default will not put to an end to attachment before judgment. After the decision of Arumughom Ammal's case( 1962 KLT 264 -FB) R.11A was incorporated in O.38. R.1IA reads: "11A Provisions applicable to attachment (1) The provisions of this code applicable to an attachment made in execution of a decree shall, so far as may be, apply to an attachment made before judgment which continues after the judgment by virtue of the provisions of R.11. (2) An attachment made before judgment in a suit which is dismissed for default shall not become revived merely by reason of the fact that the order for the dismissal of the suit for default has been set aside and the suit has been restored". The rule was inserted by S.85 of CPC Amendment Act 104 of 1976. The said R.11A is intended to clarify the position as to whether the provision of O.21 R.57 CPC would apply to an attachment made before judgment. It is necessary in this connection to note that there was conflict among the. High Courts on the question whether O.21 R.57 would apply to an attachment under O.38 R.5 CPC also. Of course the Kerala High Court took the view in Arumugham Ammal's case ( 1962 KLT 264 - FB) that the dismissal of the execution application for default will not put to an end to attachment before judgment. It is in that back ground R.1 IA was inserted in O.38 by the CPC Amendment Act. Sub Rule (1) of R.11A clearly states that the provisions of the Code applicable to an attachment made in execution of a decree shall apply to an attachment made before judgment which continues by virtue of the provisions of R.11. Thus the provisions inclusive of O.21 R.57 CPC concerning an attachment in execution will apply to an attachment before judgment also. 9. The position being as indicated above when an E.P is dismissed, unless the court ' make a direction with respect to the attachment as enjoined in sub-rule (1) of O.21 R.57 CPC the attachment will cease to exist. As noticed, there is no case that the execution court made any direction under O.21 R.57 CPC when the E.P was dismissed. The position being as indicated above when an E.P is dismissed, unless the court ' make a direction with respect to the attachment as enjoined in sub-rule (1) of O.21 R.57 CPC the attachment will cease to exist. As noticed, there is no case that the execution court made any direction under O.21 R.57 CPC when the E.P was dismissed. Thus as per sub-rule (2) of O.21 R.57 CPC the attachment has ceased to exist on the dismissal of the E.P. when the attachment ceased to exist the claim petitions would become infructuous. Consequently the dismissal of the claim petitions in such circumstance could only be a dismissal as a result of the ceasing of the attachment. Further the order also states that the dismissal was without prejudice to the parties right, if any. In view of the said aspect, the revision petitions are liable to be dismissed which accordingly are dismissed. Issue photo copy of the order on usual terms.