ORDER : P.G. Ajithkumar, J. The 1st respondent in R.F.A.(Misc) No.1 of 2019 has filed this petition for review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. The appeal was allowed as per the judgment dated 28.09.2022, reported as Mohammed v. Mannil Abdul Gadhafi alias Abdul Gadafi Mannil, [ 2022 (6) KLT 269 : 2022 (4) KLJ 362 : 2022 (6) KHC 369 : 2022 KHC OnLine 761 : MANU/KE/3474/2022]. We later noticed that there occurred a mis-statement of law while we discussed the law laid down by the Apex Court in Vareed Jacob v. Sosamma Geevarghese and others [(2004) 6 SCC 378], which was a divided verdict, and hence the matter was listed as “to be spoken to”. In the meantime, this review petition has been filed. 3. Review is sought on the following grounds : (i) the claim petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of by the Sub Court, Ernakulam without there having a detailed enquiry as contemplated in Order XXI, Rule 58 of the Code, wherefore the matter should have been remanded for a fresh consideration; (ii) the 1st respondent failed to discharge his burden to prove that the sale deeds in favour of the petitioner are vitiated; (iii) the finding that Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was applicable to this case is incorrect; (iv) the principle laid down in Vareed Jacob (supra) was wrongly applied; and (v) the right in favour of third parties in the disputed property has already been created and therefore the claim petition should not have been decided. 4. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not choose to appear in the appeal as well as in this petition. 5. The order of the Sub Court, Ernakulam in I.A.No.2520 of 2017 in O.S.No.230 of 2016 was impugned in the appeal. That was a claim petition filed under Order XXXVIII, Rule 8 read with Order XXI, Rule 58 of the Code. Before the learned Sub Judge, no oral evidence was adduced. Exts.A1 to A3 and Exts.B1 to B12 were produced. After considering such materials, the impugned order dated 01.12.2018 in I.A.No.2520 of 2017 in O.S.No.230 of 2016 was rendered. The order was in favour of the review petitioner. Before the learned Sub Judge, no oral evidence was adduced. Exts.A1 to A3 and Exts.B1 to B12 were produced. After considering such materials, the impugned order dated 01.12.2018 in I.A.No.2520 of 2017 in O.S.No.230 of 2016 was rendered. The order was in favour of the review petitioner. He did not have a case while considering the appeal that a detailed enquiry as contemplated in Order XXI, Rule 58 of the Code was not done and hence the matter should have been remanded to the Sub Court. The provisions of Order XXI, Rule 58 insist that while adjudicating a claim to an attached property, the court has to decide all questions relating to right, title and interest in the property arising between the parties to the proceedings. 6. In Verizon Builders and Developers Limited and another v. Jyothi Susan John and others [ 2019 (1) KLT 100 ] a Full Bench of this Court held that insofar as the procedure under Order XXXVIII Rule 8 has incorporated Order XXI Rule 58 for adjudication of claims, any objection filed regarding the claim has to be adjudicated in accordance with law. When a claim is made in respect of a property by a third party claimant stating that the property attached has been assigned in his favour, even prior to the date of attachment, necessarily, the plaintiff/respondent gets an opportunity to file an objection and contend that the transfer was fraudulent. Therefore, while considering the claim, it is quite inconceivable to observe that the objection to the claim petition regarding fraudulent transfer under Section 53 of the TP Act need not be considered. Accordingly, it was held that when Order XXXVIII Rule 8 of the Code insist on to follow the procedure under Order XXI Rules 58 while considering a claim, in the adjudicatory procedure on a claim petition all questions relating to right, title or interest in the property attached has to be enquired into and answered. 7. From the order of the Sub Court dated 01.12.2018, it is evident that all the materials produced before it by the respective parties were considered while passing that order. The fact that the contesting parties could have adduced more evidence is not a reason for a remand of the matter and a review is not possible on that ground. 8. From the order of the Sub Court dated 01.12.2018, it is evident that all the materials produced before it by the respective parties were considered while passing that order. The fact that the contesting parties could have adduced more evidence is not a reason for a remand of the matter and a review is not possible on that ground. 8. Whether the claim of the 1st respondent in O.S.No.230 of 2016 amounted a claim for an ascertained sum of money arising out of a debtor-creditor relationship so as to attract the mischief of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, was answered based on the materials produced before the court. Correctness of that finding cannot be called in question under review jurisdiction, unless an apparent error is pointed out. No such error is pointed out by the petitioner, and therefore the said ground for the review is also not tenable. 9. The petitioner would contend that he has created rights in the disputed property in favour of third parties, including a mortgage. Those are subsequent events, which cannot be countenanced as a reason for review. 10. The judgment in Vareed Jacob (supra) was a divided verdict. The view taken by the majority is stated in paragraph No.21, which reads,- “21. In the case of Nancy John Lyndon v. Prabhati Lal Chowdhury [ (1987) 4 SCC 78 ] it has been held that in view of Order XXI Rule 57 CPC it is clear that with the dismissal of the title execution suit for default, the attachment levied earlier ceased. However, it has been further held that when the dismissal was set aside and the suit was restored, the effect of restoring the suit was to restore the position prevalent till the dismissal of the suit or before dismissal of the title execution suit. We repeat that this judgment was under Order XXI Rule 57 whose scheme is similar to Order XXXVIII Rule 11 and Rule 11-A CPC and therefore, we cannot put all interlocutory orders on the same basis.” 11. In Nancy John Lyndon (supra) referred to in the aforesaid decision, the question was whether alienation of the property made when attachment was in subsistence in a suit which was subsequently only dismissed for default and later on restored to file, would be valid. In Nancy John Lyndon (supra) referred to in the aforesaid decision, the question was whether alienation of the property made when attachment was in subsistence in a suit which was subsequently only dismissed for default and later on restored to file, would be valid. The Apex Court held that alienation made during subsistence of the attachment would be invalid despite the fact that the suit was later dismissed. The Apex Court held that when the suit dismissed for default is restored on file, the attachment in subsistence till the dismissal of the suit would remain valid for that period and any private alienation during subsistence of the attachment would be invalid. It is also observed that “even if a doubt were to be entertained as to whether an order for restoration of the suit or execution application would have the effect of restoring the attachment retrospectively so as to affect alienations made during the period between dismissal of the suit or execution application and the order directing restoration, it is clear that an order of restoration would certainly restore or revive the attachment for the period during which it was in subsistence, namely, prior to the dismissal of the suit or execution application”. 12. The Apex Court in Vareed Jacob (supra) reiterated the said view and re-emphasised that in view of the provisions under Order XXI, Rule 57 of the Code, whose scheme is similar to Order XXXVIII, Rule 11, Rule 11-A of the Code, would not place an order of attachment before judgment at par with other interlocutory orders. Rule 57 of Order XXI envisages that when a property has been attached in execution of a decree and the application for execution is dismissed, the court shall direct whether the attachment will continue or cease. If the attachment is ordered to continue, the court shall indicate the period for such continuance. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 57 makes it clear that if the court omits to give such a direction regarding continuance, the attachment shall be deemed to have ceased. 13. Rule 11-A of Order XXXVIII, which was inserted by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976, says that the provisions applicable to an attachment made in execution of the decree shall, so far as may be, apply to an attachment made before judgement, which continues after the judgment by virtue of the provisions of Rule 11. 13. Rule 11-A of Order XXXVIII, which was inserted by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976, says that the provisions applicable to an attachment made in execution of the decree shall, so far as may be, apply to an attachment made before judgement, which continues after the judgment by virtue of the provisions of Rule 11. The purport of Rule 11 of Order XXXVIII is that if the property is attached before the judgement, it shall not be necessary to re-attach the property in execution of the decree. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 11-A of Order XXXVIII of the Code makes all the difference. It reads,- “(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.” 14. In view of the said specific provision, an attachment made before the judgment in a suit, which is dismissed for default, shall not be revived even if the suit dismissed for default is restored to file. An order of rejection of a plaint has the same effect of a dismissal of the suit for the above purpose. 15. A learned Judge of this Court in Kunhimoideen @ Bava and another v. Thalekkara Sulaikha and others [ 2020 (2) KHC 177 : 2020 (2) KLT 248 ] confronted with a question, whether alienation of an immovable property after restoration on file the suit, in which there was an order of temporary injunction against alienation before its dismissal for default, is valid? The learned Judge, after referring to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Vareed Jacob (supra), held that on restoration, all interim orders will stand restored even without any specific order for the purpose. However, situation will again be different, if specific order is passed at the time of restoration, confining the effect of restoration to certain interim orders only. Otherwise, it can generally be stated that all such interlocutory orders will stand automatically revived on restoration of the suit, with notice to the parties, with effect from the date of order. Although it was observed that the order of attachment before judgement stands in a different footing, it was not specifically stated whether or not an order of attachment will revive on restoration of the suit. Although it was observed that the order of attachment before judgement stands in a different footing, it was not specifically stated whether or not an order of attachment will revive on restoration of the suit. 16. When the said question of law was answered, there occurred a mis-statement in paragraph No.13 of the judgement dated 28.09.2022 sought to be reviewed, i.e., the judgment dated 28.09.2022 in R.F.A.(Misc) No.1 of 2019. What we stated is that an order of attachment made in a suit, which is dismissed for default, will be revived if the suit is restored on file. The Apex Court in Vareed Jacob (supra) has drawn the difference between an order of attachment before judgment and other interlocutory orders in the light of the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 57 and Order XXXVIII, Rules 11 and 11-A of the Code. The ratio laid down is that an order of attachment before judgement made in a suit, which was dismissed for default will not be revived even if the suit is restored on file. If a property is attached in execution of a decree and the application for execution is dismissed, the Court shall, as envisaged in Rule 57 of Order XXI of the Code, direct whether the attachment will continue or cease. If the attachment is ordered to continue, the court shall further indicate the period for such continuance. If the court omits to give such a direction regarding continuance at the time of dismissal of an Execution Petition for default, the attachment made in execution of a decree shall be deemed to have ceased by the operation of the provisions Sub-rule (2) of Rule 57 of Order XXI of the Code. 17. The view taken by this Court in paragraph No.13 of the judgement dated 28.09.2022, reported in 2022 (6) KLT 269 : 2022 (4) KLJ 362 : 2022 (6) KHC 369 : 2022 KHC OnLine 761 : MANU/KE/3474/2022, to the contrary is therefore an error liable to be reviewed and corrected. We do so. 18. The Sub Court, Ernakulam dismissed I.A.No.2520 of 2017 while O.S.No.213 of 2016 was pending consideration of the court. The plaint in the suit was subsequently rejected for want of payment of court fees. That order of rejection was later set aside and the suit was restored on file. We do so. 18. The Sub Court, Ernakulam dismissed I.A.No.2520 of 2017 while O.S.No.213 of 2016 was pending consideration of the court. The plaint in the suit was subsequently rejected for want of payment of court fees. That order of rejection was later set aside and the suit was restored on file. Therefore, the position obtained here is that at the time of deciding the claim petition, the attachment was in subsistence. The legality and correctness of that order in the claim petition were impugned in R.F.A. (Misc) No.1 of 2019. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Nancy John Lyndon (supra) and reiterated in Vareed Jacob (supra), legality and correctness or otherwise of the order of the Sub Court in the claim petition ought to be decided by this Court, and therefore the error occurred while stating the principle of law laid down in Vareed Jacob in paragraph No.13 of the judgement does not change the final outcome in the appeal. 19. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, during the course of arguments, submitted that after disposal of this appeal, the 1st respondent applied for attachment of the disputed properties again. The claim petition, I.A.No.2520 of 2017 in O.S.No.230 of 2016 was decided by the Sub Court, Ernakulam and the appeal thereon was decided by this Court on the basis of the contentions and evidence placed before the courts. Therefore, the findings in the order of the Sub Court dated 01.12.2018 in I.A.No.2520 of 2017 in O.S.No.230 of 2016 and in the judgment dated 28.09.2022 of this Court in R.F.A.(Misc) No.1 of 2019 do not bar consideration if a new claim petition is filed after a fresh attachment. With the above observation, the Review Petition is disposed of.