Coutts Trotter, J.
1. This is a petition to set aside an order of the District Munsif of Trichinopoly in which he awarded a sum of Rs. 50 as compensation to the respondent, who had been arrested before judgment on the suit of the petitioner. It is sought to set aside this order on two grounds. The first is that the matter was not brought before the Court in the manner provided by Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code. The fact was that, in the proceedings on the petition for arrest, the defendant filed a counter-petition in which besides traversing the statements of the petitioner relating to the necessity for the arrest he asked for damages for the arrest, which by then had been carried out. The Court was, therefore, fully seized of the matter, and this objection is entirely without merits.
2. The neat point taken is that the words of Section 95 which speak of 'the expense or injury caused to the defendant' for which compensation is to be awarded, only extend to cases where what in English Law would be called special damage' can be shown; that is to say, where the plaintiff has suffered some tangible injury that can be measured directly in money. I see no ground for confining the words in that sense, and I think it is perfectly competent to the Court to award general damages for injury to reputation or the humiliation caused, of necessity, by the arrest. I think it was, therefore, quite within the competence of the District Munsif to award general damages of this nature; and the amount he has awarded is a very modest one. The petition is dismissed with costs.