Jagat Narayan, J.—This is a revision application by one Rahim Bux, who has since died, against an appellate order of the Distt. Judge, Jodhpur, granting compensation to Dhaloo Mal respondent under section 95 C. P. C. 2. Rahim Bux instituted a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment against Dhaloo Mal in respect of a house situated at Jodhpur. On the date on which he instituted the suit he filed an application under Order 38, Rule 1 C.P.C. supported by an affidavit praying that a warrant of arrest be issued for the arrest of Dhaloo Mal. It was alleged in the application and the affidavit that Dhaloo Mal was intending to leave the jurisdiction of the Court. The learned Civil Judge in whose court the suit was instituted issued a warrant of arrest for Dhaloo Mal who was arrested and brought before him on the very day. He was released on furnishing security. He filed an application on 9.1.58 for cancellation of the order of arrest and for the discharge of the surety. But the learned Civil Judge took no action on this application. Ultimately the suit was decreed on 24.5.58 against Dhaloo Mal. On 31.5.58 he moved the present application under section 95 C.P.C. for compensation on the ground that the arrest was applied for on insufficient ground. The learned Civil Judge found that the allegation made in the application and the affidavit that Dhaloo Mal was intending to leave the jurisdiction of the court was false. But he did not award any compensation on the ground that on the application of Dhaloo Mal the order of arrest had not been cancelled and the surety had not been discharged. In doing so he followed a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Gyan Prakash Vs. Kishori Lal(l). That decision in turn relied on Arjun Biswas Vs. Abdul Biswas(2), Rama Mudali Vs. Marappa Goundan(3) and some English decisions. The decision in Rama Mudali Vs. Marappa Goundan(3) is also based on an English decision. The provision of sec. 95 C.P.C. has not been referred to in it. Arjun Biswas Vs. Abdul Biswas(2) was the case of a suit for damages and not an application under sec. 95 C.P.C. The English decisions relied on also arose out of actions for damages. It appears that no summary remedy similar to that provided under sec. The provision of sec. 95 C.P.C. has not been referred to in it. Arjun Biswas Vs. Abdul Biswas(2) was the case of a suit for damages and not an application under sec. 95 C.P.C. The English decisions relied on also arose out of actions for damages. It appears that no summary remedy similar to that provided under sec. 95 C.P.C. was provided under the English law. As was pointed out in a subsequent decision of the Madras High Court in Palanisami Vs. Kaliappa(4) section 95 C.P.C. alone governs the procedure in a summary application for compensation for wrongful arrest or attachment and there is no justification for hedging this remedy round with restrictions which the section itself does not import. 3. I am accordingly of the view that the decision which the learned Civil Judge followed does not lay down the law correctly and this decision was rightly set aside by the learned District Judge on appeal. 4. It was also contended on behalf of the applicants relying on the decisions in Palanisami Vs. Kaliappa(4) and M/S. Seenappa Setty Vs. Suryanarayana Rao(5) that Dhaloomal having failed to plead in his application what damages he suffered no damages should be awarded to him. Both these cases were cases of wrongful attachment of property. The present case is a case of wrongful arrest, that is a case of personal wrong. In an action Tor wrongful arrest damages are at large. In other words general damages in addition to special damages, if any, alleged and proved are recoverable; In the present case no special damage has been alleged or proved. But Dhaloo Mal is entitled to general damages. He is a business man who was at the time of his arrest carrying on money lending business. Rahim Bux got him arrested wrongfully. The award of Rs. 200/- as damages in the circumstances of the present case cannot be said to be excessive. 5. I accordingly dismiss the revision application with costs.