The central legal point established in the judgment is that Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, can be invoked to address claims not covered by Section 145 or Section 47, providing a remedy for enforcing a security bond in execution proceedings.

Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.

1. The suit out of which this matter arises, namely, O.S. No. 32 of 1920 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of South Kanara, was a suit instituted by the Karnavan of a tavazhi seeking a declaration that the suit scheduled properties were the joint family properties of the tavazhi and not the private properties of the 2nd defendant. There was also a claim for a permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 and 30 and 31 or their men from cutting or removing trees on the plaint properties or from interfering in any way with the plaintiffs management of them. The 1st defendant in the suit had leased the properties to the 2nd defendant who sub-leased them to defendants 30 and 31, the appellants here, who were thus in possession of the properties, cutting and removing the trees on them. Pending the disposal of the suit, the plaintiff applied for a temporary injunction against defendants 1 and 2 and the appellants. The plaintiff, in view of the fact that damages were likely to be suffered by the appellants if the temporary injunction were granted and the suit should not succeed, offered to give security to the extent of Rs. 15,000 as a condition for the granting of the temporary injunction; and a registered security bond was executed by means of which the plaintiff gave an undertaking to the Court to make good to the appellants whatever loss was sustained by them on account of the injunction order in case the suit was eventually decided against him and further agreed that, in case he did not make good the loss, the properties mentioned in the security bond were to be liable for the amount of the loss suffered by the appellants and he also made himself personally liable. The security bond having been executed and put into Court, the temporary injunction was granted. As against some of the defendants who were members of the tavazhi, the suit was compromised. As against the appellants, the suit was dismissed with costs. Then the appellants in execution proceedings (O.P. No. 5 of 1922) claimed an assessment of the damages suffered by them by reason of the temporary injunction and a payment to them by the plaintiff of the sum so assessed or so much of it as was covered by the security bond and in default a sale of the properties given as security in the security bond. The Subordinate Judge was of the opinion that the appellants were entitled to put in their claim under Section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The 1st respondent appealed to the District Judge who held that the appellants here were not entitled in execution proceedings to enforce the security bond on the ground that there had been no decree for the payment of the damages nor any executable order with regard to them. He held that Section 145, Civil Procedure Code, only applied to execution against persons who had become liable as sureties and who are not parties to the suit. He held further that Section 47 was not applicable because there had been no decree or executable order and that the matter did not relate to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. He further held that Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, was of no help to the appellants. It was contended on behalf of the respondents that the appellants only remedy was by way of suit.

2. The question before us is whether the appellants are entitled to enforce the security bond in execution either under Section 145 or Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, or failing a remedy if those sections are not applicable then under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code. For the respondents it is contended that the appellants remedy is by way of a suit or that an application should have been made under Section 95, Civil Procedure Code, to the Court to award compensation to the appellants, and in support of the latter contention Varajlal Mulchand v. Kastur Dharamchand I.L.R.(1896) 22 Bom. 42 was referred to. In that case, the respondent had obtained a decree against one