1. This application has been argued ex parte; no one appears for the defendants opposite parties. The suit as framed was a suit for contribution, the case for the plaintiff being that he and the defendants had been co-defendants in a partition suit. In that partition suit a decree for costs Was passed against all of the defendants and in favour of the plaintiffs. The decree for costs was a joint decree and the result was that execution was taken out against the present plaintiff, who was obliged to pay the entire costs awarded by the decree. The suit with which I am now concerned has, therefore, been brought against the remaining defendants for the purpose of obtaining contribution. The Judge of the Court below has relied upon a ruling reported as Mulla v. Jagannath 6 Ind. Cas. 684 : 7 A.L.J. 720 32 A. 585 which does not, in my opinion, govern the facts of this case. There is a ruling reported as Nihal Singh v. Collector of Bulandthahr 33 Ind. Cas. 165 : 14 A.L.J. 275 : 38 A. 237 which seems to me to be in point. Applying the principle laid down in this latter ruling I hold that the plaintiff here was entitled to maintain the suit for contribution. It may also be observed here that the defendants did not in their written statement of defence raise any plea to the effect that the suit for contribution was not maintainable : consequently it is difficult to say upon what pleadings the Court below raised issue No. 1 which it has decided adversely to the plaintiff. I allow the application, set aside the order of the Court below and direct the Judge to entertain the suit and to dispose of it on the merits. The applicant is entitled to his costs in this Court.