LALTA PRASAD Vs. SADIQ HUSEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Bareilly dismissing plaintiffs suit with costs.

(2.) It is unnecessary that we should set out the facts of this case at length; they will be found fully detailed in the reported case of Sadiq Husain V/s. Lalta Prasad (1897) I.L.R. 20 All. 139 of which this case is a sequel.

(3.) Suffice it to say that in that case the present appellants failed in their attempt to have execution of the decree of Her late Majesty in Council against Sadiq Husen, the respondent here. It was in that case held by a Bench of this Court, of which one of us was a member, that as Sadiq Husen was no party to the decree made by Her late Majesty in Council, that decree could not be executed against him. Being thus foiled in their attempt to proceed against the respondent by way of execution, the appellants have had recourse Do this regular suit, by which they seek to recover from him Rs. 4,820-13, the amount of the costs in the Court of the Subordinate Judge in the suit of 1888, which they paid into Court in July, 1891, when the original decree of the High Court was reversed by this Court on March 16th, 1891, and they were ordered to pay that sum as their appellants costs, and it was-paid, to the respondent Sadiq Husen pursuant to an alignment to him from the successful defendants-appellants Aziz-ud-din and Hafiz-ud-din. The plaintiffs here further ask for Rs. 4,068-11-6 interest by way of damages on the Rs. 4,820- 13.