1. The short question for decision in this Second Appeal is, whether in proceedings under S.144 of the Civil Procedure Code, the appellant, decree-holder, who had withdrawn a certain sum of money deposited in Court by the respondent judgment debtor, pursuant to a decree which had afterwards been modified, is not liable also for interest thereon in making restitution. It was contended for the appellant, that no claim for interest can be made against him, being outside the provisions of the Interest Act. In my view, the claim is well founded and falls squarely within the terms of S.144, Civil Procedure Code, the relevant part of which reads: -

"and, for this purpose, the Court may make any order, including orders for the payment of interest which are properly consequential on such variation or reversal."

This power is untrammelled by anything in the Interest Act, being founded upon a wholy different principle, that, it is one of the highest duties of the Court to see that "its act does no injury to any of the suitors". In stating the principle, I cannot do better than extract the following passage from the judgment of the Privy Council in Rodger v. The Comptoir D' Escompte