1. The defendant obeyed the order of the Court by producing the money in Court within 15 days. The Court, however, without receiving the money and without rejecting it as improperly tendered, i.e., as not being deposited in the Treasury as required by the Rules of Practice, handed it back to the party with orders to produce it again on the 28th idem in Court. I think that the Court must, in these circumstances, be held responsible for the money not having been paid into the Treasury within the time allowed. Had the Court simply rejected the money as not properly tendered, the case might have been different, but when it gave the party instructions as to the further custody of the money, and the party obeyed those instructions, I think the party cannot be held to have made default. The cases (Gujadhur Pauree v. Naik Pauree, I. L. R., 8 C, 528 and Srinivasa Bhutta v. Malayacha Mannadi, Ib. 7. M., 211) relied on by the appellant do not support his contention, but show rather that if the debtor does his part in attempting to properly pay the money into Court, he is not responsible for any failure by the Court to duly receive it.
2. In the present case, the party obeyed the instructions of the Court in regard to the money, and, I think, must be held to conform to the terms of the decree, so far as the production of the money in Court on the first and second occasions goes. There is no finding that the appellant had any just cause for not attending Court to receive the money on the second occasion.
3. The District Judge's order is, therefore, in my opinion legally sustainable, and it is clearly just on the merits.
4. I, therefore, dismiss this appeal against it with costs.