This Civil Revision Petition originally came up for hearing before Ramachandra Iyer, J., who considered that the case may be posted before a Division Bench in view of the conflict between the decisions in Rama Mudali v. Marappa Goundan1and Palanisami Goundar v. Kaliappa Goundar2 .

This petition arises out of an application under section 95 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the award of compensation for attachment on insufficient grounds. It is sufficient to state the following facts. The petitioner before us filed a suit, O.S. No. 385 of 1954, in the Court of the District Munsif of Vellore against the respondent to recover a sum of Rs. 1,260-2-0. Along with the suit he also filed I.A. No. 1245 of 1954, for attachment before judgment of the respondent’s residential house at Gudiyatham on 16th December, 1954. An interim order of attachment was passed and the property was actually attached on 17th December, 1954. On 12th January, 1955, time till 19th January, 1955, was given to the respondent to file a counter-affidavit. The counter-affidavit appears to have been filed and the matter was posted for enquiry to 27th January. Eventually, on 4th March, 1955, the suit itself was decreed ex parte and the attachment was made absolute. Subsequently, the respondent appears to have got the ex parte decree set aside, but evidently no application was made to have the attachment set aside. The respondent thereafter filed the application, out of which this revision petition arises, I.A. No. 205 of 1955, under section 95 of the Code of Civil Procedure, allegeing that the attachment was procured maliciously on untrue allegations. The respondent stated that he was possessed of vast properties and extensive lands and he was also carrying on a lucrative business. The attachment was therefore obtained on false and insufficient grounds with a view to injure his reputation. The respondent claimed damages in a sum of Rs. 1,000. The learned District Munsif held that the attachment was effected mala fide and on insufficient grounds. He overruled an objection that the application was not maintainable, because there was no order setting aside the attachment. He considered a sum of Rs. 300 would be adequate compensation and accordingly directed the petitioner to pay the said amount. There was an appeal by the petitioner before us to the Subordinate Judge of Vellore but the appeal was dismissed. The learned Subordinate Judge agreed with the District Munsif on all points. He found that the attachment was secured on false and insufficient grounds. He also held that the petition was maintainable though the order of attachment had been made absolute and there was no order setting aside the attachment. The petitioner seeks from this Court a revision of the said order of the Subordinate Judge confirming the order of the District Munsif.

Obviously, this Court cannot go behind the findings of the Courts below that the attachment was procured on false and insufficient grounds and that the sum of Rs. 300 would be adequate compensation. The argument was therefore confined to the question whether the respondent could be granted any compensation so long as there was an order of attachment which had been made absolute and there was no order setting aside the said attachment. Before we deal with the decisions cited to us, we would point out that there are two aspects from which the question can be approached. One is that an application under section 95 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable once an attachment has been made absolute after notice and there has been no subsequent order cancelling such attachment. This is the aspect emphasised in the decisions cited to us. The other as- pect is not that the application itself is not maintainable but that the prior order of attachment which had been allowed to become final would preclude the Court from holding that the attachment had been procured on false and insufficient grounds. The reasoning is