1. This is an appeal by the decree-holders, who were defendants in the suit in which a decree was passed in their favour for costs against the plaintiffs. The latter were minors and were sued with their father, Manohar Lal as a next friend. The suit was for recovery of a certain sum of money alleged to be due to the plaintiffs. It was dismissed, and the defendants were' decreed costs incurred by them in the suit. They took out execution of the decree for costs and attempted to attach a house belonging to Manohar Lal, who objected on the ground that he was no party to the decree and that the decree-holders could not therefore proceed against property belonging to him personally. This objection found favour with the lower Court which dismissed the application for execution. The decree-holders have preferred the present appeal.
2. It is pointed out by the appellants' learned advocate that Manohar Lal stated in his statement in pleadings that the money which was the subject-matter of the suit was his property and that it had been deposited with the defendants in the name of his minor sons, the plaintiffs. The decree however does not show Manohar Lal as a party except so far that he appears as the next friend of the minor plaintiffs. The contention put forward before us is that the sons were merely benamidars, the beneficial interest in the subject-matter of the suit being vested in Manohar Lal, the father, who must be held to be liable to pay the costs of the decree against the plaintiffs. It seems to us that the right of the decree-holders to obtain satisfaction of their decree for costs against Manohar Lal rests on facts which cannot be ascertained except by an inquiry. The Court executing the decree cannot go behind the decree which, on the face of it, is against the minor plaintiffs. Manohar Lal is not made liable by the terms of the decree to the costs awarded to the successful defendants. It is clear that the Court executing the decree will materially alter the terms of the decree if it finds that the party really liable for costs is Manohar Lal. We think that the lower Court was right in holding that the decree-holders cannot execute, their decree for costs against Manohar Lal, who is not shown in the decree as a party. In this view the appeal fails not only on the merits, but in limine as Manohar Lal's objection should be considered to be one under Rule 58, and a decision adverse to him is not appeasable. The appeal is dismissed with costs.