1. The plaintiff was on two occasions an unsuccessful claimant under Section 278 of the Code of Civil Procedure to raise attachments placed by the defendant No. 1 on the property now in suit in execution of decrees obtained against the defendant No 2. The first order against the plaintiff was made on the 14th January, 1881; the second on the 9th June, 1883, and the present suit was brought within one year from the latter date. The District Judge has held it to be barred by time, inasmuch as it was not brought within a year from the date of the first order. But here we think that he is wrong, for though the order was made on the 14th January, 1881,- the attachment was, by reason of the judgment-debtor's having paid the money, raised on the 23rd March, 1883, on which date the plaintiff's right of action had not become barred. As the plaintiff's object was thus gained on the 23rd Search, though not on his application, and as he remained then, as he is now, in possession of the property, there was really no right of action remaining to him in respect of the order of the 14th January, 1881--Umesh Chunder Roy v. Raj Bullubh Sun I.L.R. 8 Cal. 279 The second attachment thereafter placed by defendant No. 1, in 1883, was a new and distinct act giving a new cause of action on which the plaintiff is entitled to a fresh enquiry and decision--Kashinath Morsheth v. Ramchandra Gopinath I.L.R. 8 Cal. 279. We, therefore, reverse the decree of the lower, appellate Court and remand the case for a hearing on the merits. Costs to abide the result.