Burkitt and Dillon, JJ.
1. In this case it appears that on suit by the plaintiffs respondents against the appellant a decree was given against the latter for payment of a sum of money. The defendant paid that money into Court, and it was drawn from the Court by the plaintiffs. Subsequently on appeal to this Court the decree in favour of the plaintiffs was reversed and their suit was dismissed.
2. The present proceeding is an application by the successful defendant appellant under Section 583 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for restitution to him, with interest, of the sum paid by him into Court under the decree, and drawn out by the plaintiffs respondents.
3. The only question to be decided is whether the applicant is entitled to interest on his money during the time it was in the hands of the plaintiffs respondents. On that point there have been some conflicting rulings in this Court. We would refer to the cases of Jaswant Singh v. Dip Singh I.L.R. 7 All. 432, Ram Sahai v. The Bank of Bengal I.L.R. 8 All. 262, Bhagwan Singh v. Ummtul Hasnain I.L.R. 18 All. 262, Mewn Kuar v. Banarsi Prasad Weekly Notes 1897 p. 76. Hatti Prasad v. Chattarpal Dube Weekly Notes 1888 p. 287, and there is also the case of Ayyavayyar v. Shastram Ayyar I.L.R. 9 Mad. 506. In our opinion, however, the case before us is concluded by the authority of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Rodger v. The Comptoir D'Escompte de Paris L.R. 3 P.C. 465. We especially refer to the observations of Lord Cairns made therein, which are set forth and explained at length in Jaswant Singh v. Dip Singh I.L.R. 7 All. 432. It appears to us that the view of their Lordships in that case cannot have been brought to the notice of the Benches of this Court which held that interest could not be awarded under Section 583. In all the other case there is a distinct mention of that case, and it is cited as the authority for awarding interest, following the authority of their Lordships in that cases, we allow this appeal. We set aside the order of the lower Court, and we direct that interest at the rate of six per cent, per annum be allowed on the sum which has been ordered to be restored to the appellant here. The appellant is entitled to his costs in this Court.