1. The plaintiff in the suit obtained a decree against the defendant which he assigned to the appellant to whom he was indebted in some sums of money. The appellant was to execute the decree and give credit to the plaintiff in respect of any fruits he obtained from execution. After the assignment the defendant appealed against the decree which had been passed against him. The appellant as the assignee-decree-holder was made a party to the appeal and appeared together with the plaintiff by learned Counsel. The defendant's appeal succeeded and in his judgment the learned District Judge directed that the appellant should pay the costs of the appeal and also the costs of the trial Court.
2. It is against the order for costs against the appellant that he files this appeal. It is contended that as the appellant appeared together with the plaintiff, no order for costs should be passed against him and further as he was not interested in the suit until after the decree, he should not be ordered to pay the costs of the trial. It is conceded that the counsel on behalf of the appellant as well as on behalf of the plaintiff argued the appeal and contended that the decree should stand and should not be vacated. The appellant did everything that he could to obtain the dismissal of the appeal by the defendant and to assert the correctness of the decree which at the time of the hearing of the appeal had been assigned in his favour.
3. In my view, the order of the District Judge was correct and the appellant should be directed to pay the costs both of the appeal before the learned District Judge and of the trial Court. In Ramji Morarji v. Ellis I.L.R.(1895) 20 Bom. 167 in the course of the judgment at p. 171, the view is expressed that, an assignee of a claim in the suit who in view of his assignment is made a party to the suit should be made liable for costs. I respectfully agree with the observation in that case.
4. The result is that this appeal is dismissed with costs of the first respondent.
5. Leave to appeal is refused.