Present : Mr. Justice Wood Renton.

NICHOLAS v. WALKER, SONS' & CO.

Ex parte ERNEST RICHARD NICHOLAS, next friend of the
minor plaintiff.

C. R., Colombo, 3,011.

Minor-Action by next friend-Receipt by next friend of money due under decree-Inherent power of Court to order next friend to bring money into Court-Civil Procedure Code, s. 499.

    A minor becomes a ward of Court by being made a party to a suit; and the Court in which the action is instituted has power, in appropriate circumstances, apart from any provisions of the Code, to take such steps as it may deem necessary for the purpose of seeing that any money recovered by the next friend on behalf of the minor is actually applied for the minor's benefit.

    APPEAL by the next friend of the minor plaintiff from an order of the Commissioner (J. S. Drieberg, Esq.) directing him to bring into Court the money received by him from the defendants in satisfaction of the decree in favour of the minor. The facts are fully set out in the following order of the Commissioner (February 21, 1907).

    " This is an action by a next friend on behalf of a minor. Judgment was obtained for Rs.295 and costs on 21st December, 1950. On 31st January defendant's proctor moved to draw the sum deposited by him in Court, as he had paid the plaintiff's claim and costs in full. On this the Court ordered that the money be paid into Court, as neither the next friend nor minor had authority to receive it. This order was made on February 8. On February 11, the plaintiff's proctor moved that satisfaction of decree may be entered in the case.

    " The plaintiff's proctor, Mr. A. C. Abeyewardene, showed cause yesterday against the order requiring .the next friend to bring the money into Court. He stated that it had been judiciously expended for the benefit of the minor, whose receipt will be produced, and that he was prepared to satisfy the Court that the money had been expended as stated.

    " Mr. Abeyewardene contended that this Court had no authority to make the order in question; that there was no provision of law which gave this Court jurisdiction to prohibit a next friend from receiving the proceeds of a judgment, or when received, to require him to deposit it in Court; that a Court of Requests had not the authority given to District Courts in respect of minors (see

clause 4, Ordinance No. 12 of 1895, and section 64 of the Courts. Ordinance). Clearly Courts of requests have no jurisdiction over the estates of minors as is possessed by District Courts. But this Court has, I think, an inherent right, and it is its obvious duty to-see that the interests of minors are safeguarded, when what is due to them is recovered by an action instituted by a next friend. The necessity for such safeguarding is abundantly necessary.

    " The Court does not seek to make an order re the estate of a minor, but only to safeguard money belonging to a minor recovered by a next friend through this Court by the money being deposited in Court pending minority, or to be drawn by the next friend, for the benefit of the minor, under necessary safeguards.

    " Mr. Abeyewardene has referred to section 499 of the Civil Procedure Code, which provides for a next friend receiving money with leave of Court before decree or order, and contended that by implication it is therefore unnecessary to obtain leave of Court in respect of moneys received after decree. This contention, if upheld, will lead to the absurdity that the Court has power, during the pendency of an action, to safeguard moneys due or paid on it, but not as regards moneys paid or recovered after decree. At this stage the next friend is forced to appropriate it for his own use, as unfortunately too frequently happens.

    " Mr. Abeyewardene also referred to section 461 of the Indian Civil Code, which is as follows: ' A next friend or guardian for the suit shall not, without the leave of the C