SHANTANAND GIR Vs. BASUDEVANAND GIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an application which in the form in which it was pressed in the lower Court reflects nothing but discredit on the persons who made it and the legal advisers through whom it was made. The application is of a nature that makes it desirable to consider whether the Courts have not inherent power in suitable cases to make counsel pay the costs of the litigation. One Mahant Shantanand Gir has got a decree against Mahant Basudevanand Gir. The latter has appealed to the Privy Council and has had to deposit in this Court a sum of Rs. 4,006-12-0 for the costs of the Privy Council and for printing charges. The decree- holder has now applied to attach this amount in execution of the decree which he has obtained from the High Court. It is manifest from the trend of the argument before the lower Court, as it appears from the judgment, that the idea underlying this application was that the decree holder would attach and obtain the amount in question and would then claim to be in a position to contend that the judgment- debtor Basudevanand Gir had not in deposit the moneys he was required to deposit and to ask that the Privy Council appeal should be therefore dismissed. The Subordinate Judge has described this manoeuvre as "not charitable." We should unhesitatingly describe it as grossly improper and an offence to the Court. This manoeuvre of the decree-holder and his legal advisers in the Court below amounts to their saying to the Courts: You have told the judgment-debtor to pay into the Court certain money which the Court will hold on his behalf on trust for a certain purpose. I ask the Court forcibly to convert that money paid and held on that understanding, to a different purpose for my benefit in breach of the faith put in the Court by the man who deposited the money.

(2.) In this Court the demand of the decree-holder has in the grounds of appeal been stated in all its nakedness. The first ground urges that the lower Court was wrong in not proceeding "against the said money." The second ground urges the said money is "not exempted from attachment" and that the judgment-debtor himself has a right to withdraw the unexpended money any time ha likes for his own use and give up the appeal.

(3.) The third ground urges that "there is no equity in favour of the judgment- debtor" because he has throughout resisted the decree-holder. No equity" in favour of a man who has deposited money in trust that the trustee (the Court) should not commit a breach of trust. Because the man who deposited the money in trust can withdraw it and abandon his appeal, therefore the decree-holder can ask the Court to commit a breach of trust by handing over the money to the decree-holder and thus for the benefit of the decree-holder force the judgment- debtor to abandon his appeal.