JUDGMENT

S.K. Ghose, J. - The plaintiff opposite party brought a suit against the petitioner in the 3rd Court of the Munsif at Habiganj, exercising Small Cause Court powers, for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 100 with damages. The plaintiff's case was that he had executed a bail bond for Rs. 100 for the release of the petitioner from custody in a criminal case in which the latter was an accused and that the plaintiff had to pay the amount as the bail bond was forfeited on account of the laches of the petitioner. The defence inter alia was that the plaintiff was not legally entitled to recover the amount. The trial Court decreed the suit. Against that order the petitioner has obtained the present rule.

2. The trial Court has proceeded upon the view that there was an implied contract by the defendant to indemnify the plaintiff upon the bail bond. It is pointed out on the other side that the bail bond itself is not on the record. But I take it that it was properly proved, otherwise it takes away the very foundation of the case. It is admitted that there was no express contract and the point is whether the trial Court is correct in its view that there was an implied contract to indemnify