RUSTOMJI AND GINWALA Vs. FAZAL RAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs base their suit on the consent decree in suit No. 4403 of 1924.

(2.) The decree, after explaining the nature of the claim and reciting that a settlement of the suit beneficial to the minor concerned had been arrived at, removes certain trustees and appoints others; orders the retiring trustee Karmally (the first defendant), to account; orders the receiver to hand over certain securities as directed and discharges him; provides that the new trustees do hold the trust estate, and that all allegations be withdrawn; and finally orders: that the respective costs of all the parties to the suit including the costs, charges and expenses incurred by the trustees, be paid out of estate...and that the costs of the first defendant be paid to his attorneys, Messrs. Rustomji and Ginwalla, when taxed and noted in the margin hereof liberty to apply is then reserved.

(3.) The suit is based on the penultimate part of the decree which I have quoted. The question I have to decide is shortly: Where a decree provides that the costs of one of the parties should be paid to the solicitors named in the decree, can the solicitors so named enforce the decree, notwithstanding the fact that they are not parties to the suit ?