1. As the Full Bench has now decided that the attachment by the decree-holder in O.S. No. 153 (124) of 1914 was not subsisting when the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition applied to execute his decree and enforce his security, the application for rateable distribution after the dismissal of E.P. No. 182 of 1916, was not regular and the lower Court's order cannot be supported. We allow this Civil Re-vision Petition with costs in this Court including costs before the Full Bench.
2. An objection was taken to the validity of the Full Bench judgment on the ground that it was pronounced at a time when Mr. Justice Coutts Trotter was absent on deputation in connection with the enquiry of the Bar Committee. As that learned Judge did not resign his appointment, he did not cease to be a Judge of this Court during his temporary absence on other service, and the cases quoted in Mahomed Akil v. Asad-un-nisa Bibee and Mutty Lal Sen Gywal v. Deshkar Roy (1867) 9 WR 1 and Chinnu Pillai v. Kalimuthu Chetti I.L.R. (1911) M 47 : 21 MLJ 246 are therefore not in point. The objection to the judgment of Mr. Justice Coutts Trotter being treated as a part of the judgment of the Full Bench thus fails.