JUDGMENT : Petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.308/2002 of the Sub Court, Mavelikkara. He is aggrieved by Ext.P2 order, which lifted an attachment over the property of the respondents/defendants herein. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, an attachment can be lifted only in circumstances culled out in Order XXXVIII, Rule 9, as also, Order XXI, Rule 55. In the instant case, the attachment is seen lifted vide Ext.P2 order not on any of the circumstances as referred to in the above said provisions and hence Ext.P2 order is bad in law, is the submission made. Learned counsel has also canvassed a contention that no notice was served on the petitioner in the proceedings, which lead to Ext.P2. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that, Ext.P1 decree was passed against the respondents/defendants on 11.06.2003, the execution of which has become barred by the law of limitation, upon expiry of 12 years. It is thereafter that, the respondents/defendants filed application before the learned Sub Judge to lift the attachment, which was allowed vide Ext.P2 order. According to the learned counsel, Ext.P2 suffers from no infirmity or illegality. On the question of issuance and receipt of notice, learned counsel had produced along with the counter affidavit, a document, Ext.R1 (a), which contains the signature of the petitioner/plaintiff in token of having received notice from the Sub Court concerned. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity with respect to Ext.P2 order. It is true that Order XXXVII, Rule 9 and Order XXI, Rule 55 deals with the situation where the attachment is liable to be withdrawn. Order XXXVII, Rule 9 speaks of a situation where attachment is liable to be withdrawn, when the defendants furnish security or when the suit is dismissed. This Court notice that Order XXXVII, Rule 9 applies in the case of an attachment before judgment, wherefore, attachment is liable to be withdrawn if security is furnished. An alternate situation is when the suit is dismissed. This Court notice that Order XXXVII, Rule 9 applies in the case of an attachment before judgment, wherefore, attachment is liable to be withdrawn if security is furnished. An alternate situation is when the suit is dismissed. Whereas, Order XXI, Rule 55 speaks of removal of attachment after satisfaction of the decree, wherein, the attachment has to be removed, once the amount decreed has been deposited in the Court or the decree is otherwise satisfied and in the third case, when the decree is set aside or reversed. It is pertinent to note that Order XXI, Rule 55 deals with removal of attachment after satisfaction of the decree, whereas, Order XXXVIII, Rule 9 deals with removal of attachment made before judgment. These are two provisions which deals with specific situations referred to therein, which would not give any indication that an attachment cannot be lifted otherwise than in accordance with the two provisions above referred. At the risk of repetition, it may be stated that an attachment which was granted before judgment is liable to be removed in terms of Order XXXVIII, Rule 9, whereas, an attachment after/upon satisfaction of the decree is liable to be removed in terms of Order XXI, Rule 55. 6. In the instant case, attachment is sought to be lifted, inasmuch as, the decree has become inexecutable as barred by the law of limitation, upon the expiry of the period of 12 years from the date of decree. If the decree has become un-enforceable for the reason aforesaid, there exist no purpose in the attachment being tied on the property of the respondents/defendants. It is noticed that, neither in the application, nor in the order any provision is seen quoted for lifting the attachment, wherefore, re-course can only be made to the residuary power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is settled that when a given situation, which require Court's interference in the interest of justice, is not being dealt with by any specific provision under the Code, the inherent powers under Section 151 can be pressed into service. 7. This Court also finds little merit in the contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that a dispute with respect to attachment can only be settled by re-course to Order XXI, Rule 58. 7. This Court also finds little merit in the contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that a dispute with respect to attachment can only be settled by re-course to Order XXI, Rule 58. Order XXI, Rule 58 speaks of adjudication of claims to or objections to attachment of the property, as is adumbrated in the order. The same governs a situation where any claim is made with respect to the property attached, or any objection is made, or in a case where the property attached in execution of the decree is not liable to such attachment. In the above referred three cases, the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the same. What is contemplated there is an adjudication and it is settled that an adjudication under Order XXI, Rule 58 has all the trappings of a suit. In the instant case, no adjudication, whatsoever, is indicated in asmuchas, the attachment is sought to be lifted only for the reason that decree in question has become in-executable. In these circumstances, the challenge to Ext.P2 fails and this Original Petition will stand dismissed accordingly.