JUDGMENT

Grimwood Mears, C.J., Boys and Young, JJ. - One Basudevanand Gir obtained leave to appeal to the Privy Council and on the due date deposited a sum of Rs. 4,000 as security for costs and a further sum for printing charges.

2. On the 2nd of November, 1927, Mr. Newal Kishore, who was the legal practitioner for Shantanand Gir, the respondent to the Privy Council appeal, drafted an application to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Allahabad in which he prayed that the cash certificates for Rs. 4,000-12-0 and a sum of Rs. 798 110 for printing charges, which had been paid into the High Court by the appellant, might be attached and the amount of the decree may be so far as possible satisfied by attachment thereof. The application came before Mr. Sudeshar Maitra on the 4th of February, 1928. His order was a short one and may be given in full:

The items objected to relate to the printing charges and security furnished by the defendant-objector in connection with his appeal to His Majesty in Council. The decree-holder is anxious to lay his hands on these items too, towards the satisfaction of his decree. No doubt, and it is not disputed, the same belongs to the defendant, but if he were to be deprived of it at this stage, it would be denying him his inherent right to appeal. It is not charitable for the decree-holder that he should pursue the judgment-debtor to this extent. As a Court of Justice I think I should intervene equitably to let the judgment-debtor approach the Privy Council. In this view of the matter I allow this portion of his objection and direct that the two items shall not be attached in execution. No costs allowed,

3. It is clear that the learned Judge did not regard the application in a favourable light. He did not discuss whether the application was in part good and in part bad, and whether the one could be severed from the other, for the evident reason that the decree holder was anxious to lay his hands on the money deposited in the High Court, with the result that if the application was granted the appellant would be deprived of his right of appeal. The applicant did not ask for and did not want an order attaching any surplus that might remain after the decision of the Privy Council. He wanted immediate payment of the money and nothing else.

4. Shantanand Gir appealed from this order. The notice of appeal is undated and is sign, ed by Mr. A.P. Pandey and Mr. B.L., Dave. The application (para. 1) sets out that the Court below was wrong in refusing to allow the decree-holder "to proceed against the said money." When the matter came up for argument in this Court it was apparent that Mr. Pandey had become aware of the dubious nature of the application, and in an attempt to render it innocuous, he claimed to attach so much of the money as might not eventually be required to satisfy the costs of the appeal. Had that been the form of the application in the first instance, no objection could have been takes to it.

5. The original application being in the opinion of the Bench a reprehensible proceeding which amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court, they issued notice to Mr. Newal Kishore and Mr. Pandey "to argue the general question whether this Court has power to order a legal practitioner in appropriate circumstances to pay personally the costs of an application or suit, and, secondly, if the High Court has such power, whether it should be exercised in the present case." The matter was referred to this Full Bench and at an early stage of the proceedings Mr. Pandey stated that at the hearing of the appeal "It was common ground between Counsel and the Bench that the object of the original application in the Court below was to burke the appeal to the Privy Council." This statement was taken down word for word. It transpired subsequently that Mr. Pandey had argued the appeal in this Court without having had a consultation with Mr. Newal Kishore or the client and so his statement must not be taken to have been a r