Lawrence H. Jenkins, K.C.I.E. C.J.
1. This I think is a very clear case; money was deposited by the surety as security for the benefit of the decree-holder whose rights were interfered with, to enable the judgment-debtor to make an application in insolvency with a view to his protection from arrest. The insolvency application failed, and so it became incumbent upon the surety to produce the debtor before the Court. This he failed to do, and, in the circumstances the officiating District Judge has determined that the sum of Rs. 500 deported by the surety is forfeited to the Government. The Secretary of State has been represented before us, and the learned pleader tells us--I think most properly--that he leaves the matter in the hands of the Court. It is to my mind obvious that there was no power in the Court ot declare a forfeiture in favour of the Government. The surety was anxious to suggest that his suretyship did not extend beyond the pendency of the insolvency proceedings. But he has not appealed from the order adjudicating upon this point adversely to him, so that we could not give effect to it, even if we thought there was merit in the contention. We must set aside the order under appeal and direct that the sum of Rs. 500 be paid to the decree-holder We make no order as to costs.
2. I agree.