( 1 ) THERE was a dispute between the petitioner and the respondent in regard to the question whether the petitioner was entitled to go through one of the rooms on the first floor let out by the petitioner to the respondent for the purpose of having access to the second floor which was in the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a suit against the respondent in the Court of the Civil Judge Junior Division Baroda seeking an injunction restraining the respondent from obstructing the petitioner in going to the second floor through the room on the first floor which was in the possession of the respondent. After filing the suit the petitioner applied for an interim injunction and on the application of the petitioner ad interim injunction was granted by the learned trial Judge on 24th September 1960 restraining the respondent from obstructing the petitioner in going through the room on the first floor for the purpose of having access to the second floor with this qualification that the respondent shall be entitled to close the door of his room from 8. 00 P. M. to 7. 00 A. M. The respondent obeyed the ad interim injunction granted by the trial Court upto 2nd October 1960 but on 3rd October 1960 at about 9. 00 A. M. when the petitioner wanted to go to the second floor with his carpenter Mistry Trikamlal Jeram and two workmen named Kishorilal Pannalal and Jayantilal Keshavlal he was obstructed in doing so by the respondent through his wife closing the ground floor door of the stair-case leading upto his room on the first floor. The petitioner thereupon immediately on the next day that is 4 October 1960 presented an application to the trial Court praying for attachment of the respondents immovable property and other necessary orders under Order 39 Rule 2 sub-rule (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application was contested by the respondent who denied the allegation of the petitioner that the respondent had through his wife obstructed the petitioner in going to the second floor. The trial Court however after considering the affidavits on record came to the conclusion that the allegation of the petitioner was well-founded and he accordingly allowed the application and passed the following order:- the defendants moveable properties to the extent of the value of Rs. 100/only shall be attached under Order 39 Rule 2 C. P. C. if he fails to deposit Rs. 100/in Court on 10th April 1961. Defendant to pay cost of this application to the plaintiff. The respondent being aggrieved by this order passed by the learned trial Judge preferred an appeal in the District Court and this appeal was numbered Appeal No. 23 of 1961. In the meantime the ad interim injunction granted on 24th September 1960 was confirmed by the trial Court by an order dated 29th March 1961 and against this order also an appeal was preferred by the respondent which was numbered Appeal No. 22 of 1962 Both these appeals were heard together and the learned Assistant Judge hearing the appeals came to the conclusion that the injunction was wrongly granted by the trial Court and he accordingly allowed Appeal No. 22 of 1962 and vacated the order of injunction passed by the trial Court and so far as Appeal No. 23 of 1961 was concerned he observed that since the order of injunction was vacated the order attaching the movable property of the respondent for breach of the injunction did not survive and that appeal was also consequently allowed by him. The petitioner thereupon preferred Revision Applications against both the orders passed by the learned Assistant Judge. The Revision Application against the order vacating the injunction was summarily rejected by this Court but the Revision Application against the order setting aside the attachment of the movable property of the respondent for breach of the injunction was admitted and that is the present Revision Application which is now before me.

( 2 ) IT is obvious that the learned Assistant Judge was in err