1. In this case, there is no order by the Court granting leave to the next friend to receive any property on behalf of a minor. Order 33, Rule 6 does not therefore apply. In this respect the case differs from the decision in Kurugodappa v. Soogamma I.L.R.(1917) Mad. 40.
2. The question still arises whether Section 145 does not apply to the case. Clauses (a) and (b) do not apply. But we think Clause (c) applies. It is true that the judgment-debtor has paid the money due from him under the decree into Court and there is no further dispute between the two parties to the suit. But until the money deposited by the judgment-debtor was finally disbursed, there can be 'a proceeding consequent' on a suit.
3. The application by the next friend in which the order of the Court for converting the money into Government Promissory Notes was made is such a proceeding. We think that the conclusion of the learned Judges in Kurugodappa v. Soogamma I.L.R.(1917) Mad. 40 depended on the fact that that was a proceeding under Order 32, Rule 6, and the observations must be confined to the actual facts of the case. We are of opinion that Section 145 applies and I an order for execution against the surety may be made. In Ko Maung Gyi v. Daw Tok I.L.R.(1928) Rang. 474 there was no suit or proceeding] consequent on the suit.
4. We reverse the order of the Court below and remand the matter for fresh disposal according to law. The appellant will have costs of this appeal. Costs in the Court below will abide result.