1. This is an application in revision preferred by a decree-holder against an order of the Execution Court directing Rs. 120 to be paid to a custodian (supurddar) Yad Ram. It appears that the plaintiff had brought a suit for recovery of money and got an attachment before judgment. The defendant's property which consisted of furniture was attached and put in charge and custody of the respondent Yad Ram as the supurddar. He kept the furniture in a room. The bailiff reported that in view of the locality the room in which the furniture was kept was fairly worth Rs. 5 a month. The Court has ordered that the decree holder must pay to the custodian remuneration at the rate of Rs. 5 per month. It is contended before us that the order of the Court below was passed without any jurisdiction.
2. Order XXI, Rule 122, which applies to custody of movable property other than live stock while under attachment, lays down that the attaching officer shall, subject to approval by the Court, make such arrangement as may be most convenient and economical. Rule 123 provides that with the permission of the Court the attaching officer may place a person in special charge of the property. Then Rule 124 provides that the fee for the services of such person shall be paid at a rate not less than four annas and, ordinarily not more than six annas per diem. The Court is given a discretion to allow a higher fee for adequate reasons. The fee for the services at the minimum rate of four annas a day would come to about Rs. 7-8 per month, whereas the custodian has only claimed Rs. 5 a month.
3. It seems to us that it is the Execution Court only which can settle the fee which is to be paid to the custodian. As it was the decree-holder who had got the property attached, it is obvious that he alone can be called upon to pay the fee. We do not think that there is any good ground for interfering in revision The application is dismissed with costs.