Full Judgment
Richards, J.
1. The facts out of which this application in revision arises are briefly as follows: The defendants obtained a decree against certain individuals. In execution of that decree they attached certain crops which the plaintiff in the present suit alleges to have belonged to him. The plaintiff in the present suit objected to the attachment. The Court executing the decree made a somewhat unusual order to the effect that the objection was struck off without any adjudication, but that the handing over of the proceeds of the sale of the crops should be postponed for a month and a half. The plaintiff, therefore, instituted the present suit in a Court.
2. The Judge of Small Causes gave a decree. It is first objected that the suit was exempted from the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes by reason of Article 20 of the second Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. That Article excludes from the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes, a suit instituted under Section 283 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act XIV of 1882); that section provided for the institution of a suit by a person who had objected to the attachment of property and whose objection had been disallowed. 1 do not think there is force in this objection. There had been no adjudication whatever on the objection of the plaintiff in the present suit to the attachment of his property. It is next contended that Article 35, Clause (j), of Schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act excludes the present suit from the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes. Article 35, Clause (j), provides for the execution of a suit for compensation for illegal, improper or excessive distress or attachment. The respondent contends that inasmuch as the suit was a suit for the price or value of the property which had been wrongfully sold, the suit was not one for compensation for illegal attachment. I cannot follow this argument. The Court could not possibly give him a decree without deciding the issue whether the attachment was legal or illegal. If the attachment was legal, the property was sold in due course of law and he could not recover. The suit could hardly be treated as a suit for damages for trespass. The defendant's action which the plaintiff had reason to complain of was not the taking away himself of the plaintiff's property--what they had done was wrongfully to inform the Officer executing the decree that the crops belonged to their judgment-debtor and giving this wrong information caused the property to be attached. The mere fact that the suit is limited to a claim for the price or value of the crops which was handed to the decree-holders by the Court executing the decree does not make the suit in my judgment, any less a suit for illegal attachment within the meaning of Article 35, Clause (j), of Schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. I accordingly set aside the decree of the Court below and direct that the plaint be handed back by that Court to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. The costs of both sides heretofore incurred may be dealt with and awarded according to the discretion of the Court deciding the case.