Newaskar, J. - (1.)THIS is a petition for revision filed by the Defendant -Petitioner against the decree of Small Cause Judge, Indore. Plaintiff P.V. Bhagwat filed a suit on 12 -12 -1949 for recovery of Rs. 259/2/6 in respect of arrears of rent, electric and water charges due from the Defendant on account of the leased premises in the possession of the Defendant. The claim 'inter alia' consisted of Rs. 4 -15 -0 as balance due in respect of dues of June 1949 and Rs. 2 -9 -0 as balance of dues of July 1949. Along with the plaint the Plaintiff submitted an application for attachment before judgment supported by an affidavit. Both the application and the affidavit were based on the allegations that the Defendant had closed his business of medical practice, he was a resident of other State, and the Defendant himself had stated that he would sell away his truck. There were further allegations that all this, probably meant closing of business and intended disposal of truck, was meant for defeating the Plaintiff's claim. An order for attachment was passed ex parte on this application and the affidavit of the Plaintiff and Defendant's property consisting of furniture and type -writer was attached.
The Defendant thereupon appeared the next day and submitted an application complaining that the attachment was secured by misrepresentation and he offered to furnish security and prayed for its release. The security bond was furnished. This was accepted on reference to the Plaintiff's counsel on 13 -12 -1949. The property however was delivered back to the Defendant on 29 -12 -1949. In pursuance of notice to show cause why the order for attachment before judgment or for security be not made absolute the Defendant submitted a reply denying substantially the allegations as regards the stoppage of business of medical practice, his being a resident of outside Madhya Bharat and his intended sale of the truck. He also claimed compensation for the wrongful attachment.

(2.)THE Defendant denied the items of Rs. 4 -15 -0 and Rs. 2 -9 -0 in respect of the dues for the month of June and July 1949. The rest of the claim was admitted omitting a small item of As. 7/ - for notice charges which were disallowed.
The trial Court decreed the claim of the Plaintiff even in respect of the items of Rs. 4 -15 -0 and Rs. 2 -9 -0. It further held, while considering the question regarding the grant of compensation to the Defendant for the alleged wrongful attachment that there were reasonable grounds for apprehending for the Plaintiff that the Defendant would leave this place, thereby defeating his claim of arrears of rent. He further held that the Defendant had not proved any special pecuniary injury. Therefore relying on - Gyan Prakash v. Kishorilal : AIR 1942 All 261 (A) and - Chandulal Seraogi v. Purna Chandra, 164 Ind Cas 73 (Cal) (B) he disallowed the claim for compensation. The Defendant has now come up in revision.

(3.)MR . Dubey who appears for the Petitioner has urged firstly that the finding of the Court below regarding the liability of the Defendant for the items of Rs. 4 -15 -0 and Rs. 2 -9 -0 is not legal. Secondly, it is contended that the decision on the question of award of compensation under Section 95, Code of Civil Procedure has resulted in failure of justice.