ORDER : 1. This is plaintiff's application to revise the order dated 15-9-50, passed by the Subordinate Judge, Bhopal in suit No. 136 of 1950-51, rejecting the defendant's application for damages under S. 95. Civil P. C., but discharging the security furnished by him and awarding a sum of Rs. 15 as costs against the plaintiff. 2. The plaintiffs brought a suit for eviction of the defendant from a shop and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,770 as arrears of rent. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiffs applied for attachment before judgment of the defendant's property, under O. 38, R. 5 as the defendant was said to be disposing of or removing his property from the shop and on 10-7-50 a conditional order was passed ordering attachment of the property on failure to furnish security. The defendant furnished the security, but applied under S. 95, Civil P. C. for damages alleging that the grounds, on which the plaintiff's application was filed, were insufficient and not true. He also claimed that the security be discharged. The Court, after inquiry, passed the order dated 15-9-50 as noted above. 3. A preliminary objection to the tenability of the application or revision is taken by the non-applicant urging that an appeal to the Court of the District Judge, under O. 43, R. 1 (q), lay and not revision could lie and it be dismissed. The point for determination, therefore, is whether a revision lies or an appeal lay to the Court of the District Judge. In my opinion, the contention of the non-applicant must succeed. It must appear that the application of the plaintiffs was obviously filed under O. 38, R. 5, Civil P. C. and the Court passed the order under O. 38, R. 6 (2) of the Code. Under the latter: "Where the defendant showed cause or furnished the required security and the property specified or any portion of it has been attached, the Court shall order the attachment to be withdrawn or make such other order as it thought fit." In the circumstances of the case, the Court obviously thought and decided that the grounds, on which the attachment before judgment was claimed, were not sufficient and therefore thought fit to discharge the security. In the circumstances, the order of the Court was obviously passed under O. 38, R. 6 (2) of the Code and not merely on the application under S. 95, Civil P. C. It would appear that an application, under that section could lie only where an arrest or attachment has been effected or temporary injunction granted and though the defendant described his application as under S. 95, Civil P. C., it was really an application under O. 38, R. 6 (2) of the Code as he had furnished the required security. The order of the lower Court, therefore, as stated above, was clearly under the other provision and not under S. 95, Civil P. C. 4. It would then appear that a party, aggrieved by an order under O. 38, R. 6 of the Code, could go up in an appeal under O. 43, R. 1 (q) of the Code. In the circumstances the revision petition cannot lie, but an appeal lay to the Court of the District Judge as the order has been passed by a Subordinate Judge. That being so, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed on the preliminary objection itself. 5. It was urged by the learned counsel for the applicants that the defendant having applied under S. 95, Civil P. C., it was wrong for the Court to discharge the security furnished by the defendant and as such had exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it by law or to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction with material irregularity and therefore, a revision, under S. 34 Bhopal and Vindhya Pradesh (Courts) Act, was tenable. It would, however, appear that it has been already pointed out that though the defendant claimed damages, the real object of the application was to get an order, under O. 38, R. 5 of the Code set aside. As I have already shown, no attachment was ever effected and as such an application, under S. 95, Civil P. C , could not lie, though one under O. 38, R. 6 did. It is also obvious that under O. 33, R. 6 (2) of the Code, the Court had jurisdiction to pass an order as it thought fit and in the case on hand it has done so and as I have pointed out, the remedy of the applicants was by an appeal and not by a revision petition. It is also obvious that under O. 33, R. 6 (2) of the Code, the Court had jurisdiction to pass an order as it thought fit and in the case on hand it has done so and as I have pointed out, the remedy of the applicants was by an appeal and not by a revision petition. 6. The result is that the revision petition is dismissed with costs and the applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the non-applicant in this revision. Pleaders' costs will be Rs. 15 for each side.