CHHATRAPAT SINGH DUGAR Vs. KHARAJ SINGH LACHMIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is in the form of an appeal against the order of the learned Master dismissing the application of one Surpat Singh Dugar, for leave to execute an order for costs made by His Majesty in Council against certain minors as representatives of a deceased respondent in the Privy Council proceedings. The learned Master has set out the facts in detail, and has dealt very fully with the questions raised. The salient facts are as follows: one Chhatrapat Singh Dugar, the father of the present applicant, made an unsuccessful attempt to have himself adjudicated an insolvent under the provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act. Being aggrieved by the refusal of the Courts in India to adjudicate him, he appealed to His Majesty in Council, and on 23 November 1916, the appeal was allowed, Chhatrapat was adjudicated an insolvent, and an order for costs was made against the respondents generally. Among them was a creditor of Chhatrapat Singh, by name Raja Bijoy Singh Dudhoria. A receiver was appointed of the insolvent's assets on 2 August, 1917, by the District Judge of Murshidabad, exercising insolvency jurisdiction.

(2.) The insolvent died on 25 April 1918. On 17 February 1921, the order of His Majesty in Council was sent to the Murshidabad Court. On 6 November 1922 the receiver in the insolvency proceedings resigned, and no other receiver was appointed to take his place. Meanwhile, there was a partition suit pending on the Original Side of the Court, to which the parties were the heirs of the deceased Chhatrapat. In that partition suit there was a reference to arbitration, and by an award of 23 November 1922, the present applicant was allotted the benefit of the Privy Council order for costs. I am told that with regard to the insolvency the position was that most of the creditors had been paid in full, but that the claim of one alleged creditor was still outstanding. The heirs of Chhatrapat were contesting this claim, and had furnished security for its payment in case the claim was established. In April 1923 there was an application to which the present applicant was a party for execution of the order for costs against Raja Bijoy Singh Dudhoria, but it was abandoned and dismissed for default on 26th May 1923.

(3.) On 20 January 1926 the present applicant made an application under Section 39, Civil P. C., for transmission of the decree to this Court for execution. In accordance with the rules he presented a tabular statement, and in the column provided for stating the name of the person against whom execution of the decree was sought, he entered the name of Bhagabati Prosad, described as proprietor of Ramsarup Suryaprosad of No. 7 Kalakar Street, Calcutta. In the column provided for setting out the mode of execution, the applicant stated that, as the moveable and immoveable properties of Bhagabati Prosad consisted of the premises No. 7 Kalakar Street, Calcutta, he asked that a certificate might be sent to the High Court, Calcutta. He also set out that Chhatrapat was dead, and stated that on the basis of the award he had become entitled to the benefit of the order for costs. The order sheet of the Murshidabad Court states that the applicant has asked for issue of a certificate to the High Court for execution of the order for costs against creditor No. 33, Ramsarup Suryaprosad, who was one of the principal respondents in the Privy Council appeal. It also states that the application alleges that the said creditor Ramsarup Suryaprosad has property within the jurisdiction of the High Court.