ORDER : 1. This is a defendant's petition for revision in a Small Cause case. The plaintiff sued the defendant for recovery of Rs. 217-2-0 for the milk supplied to the defendant. The defandant denied the plaintiff's claim. During the course of the trial on 13-1-1948 the plaintiff applied for attachment before judgment under O. 38, R. 5 on the ground that the defendant is about to leave the jurisdiction of the Court in order to defeat the claim of the plaintiff and he is trying to dispose of his property in Indore, The defendant's property has also been attached before judgment in Civil O. S. No. 77 of 1947 of the Munsif Court, Indore. A notice was issued to the defendant to show cause and was asked to furnish security. As no security was furnished the defendant's house was attached on 14-1-1948. Then on 16-1-1948 the defendant put in objection that the allegations made by the plaintiff for obtaining attachment before judgment are without any reasonable cause, tbat he was not leaving the jurisdiction of the Court, nor does he want to defraud his creditors. The proceedings of 16-1-1948 show tbat the house of the defendant was attached and a Panchanama was made. The defendant's reply to attachment before judgment was filed and it was ordered that the record should be put up for evidence on 17-1-1948 as directed in the order sheet of 19-12-1947. Then on 21-2-1949 the defendant made a separate application for compensation under S. 95, Civil P. C. for Rs. 500 for obtaining wrongful attachment before judgment. The learned Judge Small Cause Court held that the application was delayed more than a year and there was no regular application for compensation and therefore, rejected the application. The Court proceeded with the case and decreed the plain tiff's suit. 2. In this revision Mr. Bhalerao who appears for defendant applicant does not contest the decree on merits. His only grievence is tbat his application dated 21-2-1949 (Vide Ex, 56 B file), claiming compensation for wrongful attachment before judgment was not inquired into when this fact was brought to the notice of the trial Judge. It appears to me that in Small Cause suits an independent inquiry regarding claim for compensation for wrongful attachment before judgment is not necessary and the evidence on the point can be taken in the course of the suit proceedings. It appears to me that in Small Cause suits an independent inquiry regarding claim for compensation for wrongful attachment before judgment is not necessary and the evidence on the point can be taken in the course of the suit proceedings. No separate inquiry under S. 95, is called for in Small Cause suits. There was nothing to prevent the defendant to lead evidence on the point that the attachment applied for was on insufficient grounds. The defendant was examined and he led no evidence on the point of compensation under S. 95. It would not be proper at this stage to remand the case and to open inquiry regarding the claim for compensation. The High Court will not interfere in revision when there is another remedy open to the defendant and there is nothing to prevent him from filing a separate suit for claming compensation for wrongful attachment. I am not inclined to interfere at this stage. The decree has been passed against the defendant and no objection on merits has been raised by Mr. Bhalerao. I, therefore, dismiss the revision application with costs.