Prinsep and Hill, JJ.
1. This is a matter relating to the execution of an order passed by Her Majesty in Council. The order of this Court was set aside on appeal,. and their Lordships of the Privy Council directed that the decree and judgment of the Subordinate Judge should be restored, and they further directed that, the respondents were to pay to the appellant as costs of the appeal to the High Court and as costs incurred in England the sum of 193 17s. sterling,, and further that the sum of 300 deposited by the appellant in the Registry of the Privy Council as security for costs should be repaid to him.
2. The Subordinate Judge in execution of this decree has refused to allow the appellant decree-holder the rate of exchange at the time of the execution of the decree, and he has allowed him execution calculated only at the rate of exchange at the time of the passing of the order by their Lordships of the Privy Council. He has also refused to allow the decree-holder interest on the costs stated in the order.
3. We have been referred to the case of Param Sukh v. Ram Dayal I.L.R. 8 All. 650 in which it was held, having regard to Section 610 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that the rate of exchange to be allowed was the rate current at the time when execution was taken out and not that at the time when the order of the Privy Council was passed. No reasons are stated in that judgment for the opinion expressed. After full consideration of the arguments of the learned pleader for the appellant we are unable to concur in the opinion expressed by the Allahabad Court. Section 610 seems to us to allow the amount expressed in sterling in the order of their Lordships of the Privy Council to be converted into rupees according to the rate of exchange for the time being fixed by the Secretary of State for India in Council, the amount expressed in the order of the Privy Council being described as the amount so payable and to be estimated according to that rate. The words 'for the time being,' on which the Judges of the Allahabad Court rely, seem to us to have reference only to the time at which the order of the Privy Council was passed. It would, moreover, be contrary to the usual rule in such matters if the amount due under a decree were to be left uncertain, and, indeed, if it were left to the option of the decree-holder to determine by a rate of exchange favourable to him to obtain a larger amount of rupees than would be due under the order as originally passed. Moreover, it seems to us that the object of this clause of Section 610 would be lost if, on the construction expressed by the Allahabad Court, a decree-holder, instead of obtaining the money due to him in rupees, the currency of this country in which the decree is executed, were practically to obtain in sterling in India the amount at the time of execution that might be due. It seems rather to have been the object of the law that the amount stated in sterling in the order should be at once convertible into Indian currency at the rate of exchange then allowed by the highest authorities in England. We have also been referred to the case of Lakhpatty Thakoorani v. Leelanund Singh 2 C.L.R. 322. The facts are not sufficiently stated in that case to satisfy us that it is in point. It does not, moreover, appear that Section 610 was considered by the learned Judges, and it would further seem from the dates contained in the judgment that the proceedings then before the Court were held before Section 610, which was enacted by the Act of 1877 and became law on the 1st October in that year, was applicable.
4. In regard to the claim for interest on costs it is sufficient to refer to the case of Forester v. The Secretary of State for India I.L.R. 3 Cal. 161 : L.R. 4 I.A. 137 as authority for holding that, inasmuch as interest was not allowed in the order of Her Majesty in Council, it cannot be given by any Court in this country. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs.