ANANDRAO BHICAJI SABNIS Vs. NAPU PATRAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants by this summons ask for a declaration that they are entitled to a charge to the extent of Rs. 3,600 on a sum of Rs. 1715-8-4 and on another sum of Rs. 2,226 6-0 which sums are directed to be paid to the first defendant by the second defendant and the plaintiff respectively by a decree of this Court. The appellants are attorneys of this Court and represented both Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in the proceedings which terminated in an order in favour of their client Defendant No. 1. The applicants estimate their costs against Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 jointly to amount to Rs. 7,000. They have already received from Defendant No. 2 a sum of Rs. 3,400 by way of advances and are now seeking to secure themselves for the payment of the balance of costs due to them by obtaining a charging order on the amounts payable under the decree to the first defendant by Defendant No. 2 and by the plaintiff respectively.

(2.) The plaintiff is a decree-holder against the first defendant in Suit No. 1447 of 1914. He has attached the decree in favour of the first defendant against Defendant No. 2 and claims to set off against his own decree the amount awarded to Defendant No. 1 against him in the present suit. He has not attached the decree of Defendant No. 1 against himself. The applicants claim priority against the plaintiff.

(3.) This was a partnership action filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for dissolution of a partnership between them and for the usual partnership accounts. By a decretal order of reference dated April 13, 1917, the matter was referred to the Commissioner of this Court. On April 1, 1925, the Commissioner made his report whereby he found that a sum of Rs. 3,627-9-4 was due to the first defendant in respect of his one-third share in the said partnership. The Commissioner further found that a sum of Rs. 3,184-4-4 was due to the second defendant in respect of his one third share in the partnership. The Commissioner found also that the plaintiff had overdrawn his share and was liable to refund Rs. 2,540-10-8. The Commissioner further found that the second defendant had in his hands on behalf of the partnership a sum of Rs. 4,271-3-0. The plaintiff filed exceptions to the Commissioner's report. His exceptions were allowed in respect of two items thereby decreasing his liability by a sum of about Rs. 900.