1. The facts of this case are that a conditional order of attachment before judgment was passed in the suit of Hyder Husain v. Latafat Husain on 3rd September 1932 and Pandit Rama Shanker Tewari, a vakil of the Court, was directed to attach the moveable goods in the shop of Latafat Husain. He proceeded to the spot, attached the goods and appointed one Sirajuddin as a supurdar. From the report of the Commissioner, his evidence taken in the present, proceedings and the document of supurdnama executed by Sirajuddin, it is clear that the latter was entrusted with the custody of the goods in the shop of Latafat Husain and accepted the liability of producing themwhen required by the Court. Later on he seems to have represented to the Court that he did not like to remain the custodian because Latafat Husain was removing the goods. The Court instituted an enquiry into the complaint made by Sirajuddin. Finally the Court ordered on 10th February 1934 that the supurdar should produce the property which was entrusted to him, by 14th February 1934 and in default, the supurdar was personally liable for money-value of the property.
2. In revision against this order it is contended before me that the Court below was wrong in making Sirajuddin liable because the Commissioner, Rama Shankar Tewari, had not obtained the permission of the Court to appoint a supurdar and therefore the Commissioner alone is liable. Reliance is placed on Badri Prasad v. Chokhey Lal 1926 All. 406. That case undoubtedly supports the applicant because therein it was held that if a Commissioner in the case of moveable goods appoints a supurdar without the previous permission of the Court the Commissioner remains responsible and is, not exonerated nor is the respossibility shifted on to the supurdar. This case however was considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Shakir Husain v. Chandu Lal 1931 All. 567 and definitely overruled. It was said that the previous permission of the Court is necessary only in the case of a guard or watchman where such guard or watchman is put in special charge of property under Rule 123, Order 21, Civil P.C. In a case like the present Order 21, Rule 122 is applicable which lays down that for the safe custody of moveable property other than live stock while under attachment the attaching officer shall, subject to approval by the Court, make such arrangements as may be most convenient and economical. In the present case the Commissioner considered that the appointment of Sirajuddin as a custodian was most convenient and economical and submitted the entire proceedings to the Court. This act of the Commissioner was brought to the notice of the Court and it held good until disapproved. In the present case we have further on the record an order dated 17th October 1932 by which the learned Judge on the application of Sirajuddin issued notice to the judgment-debtor and asked for explanations from the plaintiff and the Commissioner. This would go to show that the action taken by Pandit Rama Shanker Tewari met with the approval of the Court.
3. It was then contended relying on a certain statement made by Latafat Husain that the goods of the shop had prior to the present attachment been attached in the suit of Manzoor Husain v. Latafat Husain and as such the subsequent attachment was illegal. There is no material on the record except the statement contained in an application of Latafat Husain that the goods had been previously attached in other proceedings, and in any event Sirajuddin cannot be exonerated from responsibility when he in definite and unambiguous terms took upon himself the position of a custodian and gave is solemn undertaking to produce the goods when required by the Court. I am of the opinion that the order of the Court below is right and I dismiss this application with costs.