AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The sale never having been confirmed, but having been set aside u/s 310-A, C.P.C. was not a completed sale, and that sale therefore cannot
have the effect of removing the attachment which had previously been made at the instance of another decree--holder, the present respondent,
who would have been entitled to rate able distribution u/s 295 of the C.P.C. only if the sale had not been set aside. The appellant also contends
that the attachment was abandoned by the respondent, because he again caused an attachment to be made after the sale was set aside u/s 310--A.
This was only a precautionary step and cannot amount to an abandonment of the prior attachment, and we may add that the petitioner expressly
atated in the petition that the former attachment was in law subsisting, but that if the court thought it necessary a re-attachment might issue. The
decree of the Subordinate Judge is therefore right, and this second appeal is dismissed with costs.