JUDGMENT

Mya Bu, J - This is an application for revision of an order dismissing the (petitioner's application for removal of attachment. The attachment in question is made under Order 21, Rule 46(1)(3), Civil P.C. The respondent in execution of a money decree against his judgment-debtors obtained a prohibitory order upon the tenant of the judgment-debtors prohibiting him from giving the rent to the judgment-debtors, the rent in question being a certain quantity of paddy. After the service of the prohibitory order on the tenant, the petitioner applied for removal of attachment on the ground that he had already purchased from the judgment-debtors the right to obtain the rent in question from the tenant and had made a payment therefor. This application was dismissed by the Court on the ground that the paddy constituting the rent had not then come into existence and that therefore by means of the alleged purchase the petitioner had not at the time of the attachment obtained the property in that paddy as a purchaser. The present application is based mainly on the ground that the executing Court had wrongly applied the principle of law relating to sale of goods while the case is one of purchase of a mere actionable claim, in my opinion it is absolutely unnecessary in this case to go into this question because it is indubitable that the petitioner can obtain the remedy that he now seeks by means of a suit under Order 21, Rule 63. It is a recognised rule that if a party to a civil proceeding seeks to exercise the discretionary powers of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code he must satisfy the Court that he has no other remedy open to him to set aside what he alleges to have been illegally, irregularly or without jurisdiction done by a Subordinate Court: See Gopal Das v. Alaf Khan (1889) 11 All. 383 and J.J. Guise v. Jaisraj (1893) 15 All. 405. The soundness of this principle is Bhown by the fact that an order passed in the present proceeding either one way or the other will not be conclusive inasmuch as the party aggrieved thereby may have his claim or objection regularly and more effectively adjudicated upon by instituting a suit under Order 21, Rule 63.

2. For these reasons the application is dismissed; advocate's fee, two gold mohurs.