AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 165 wordsShephard, J.—I am unable to agree with the District Judge and think that he was bound to pass an order in accordance with the prayer of
the petition. The judge refused to do so on the supposition that the decision in Baghunath Das v. Badri Prasad was in point. The facts of that case
were, however, different. Here, as soon as the decree of the 21st December 1891 was passed, the order ceased to have any effect and the decree
was substituted for it. The decree expressly declares that the order shall have no effect and that declaration must include the matter of costs as well
as any other part of the order. This being, so, there was no foundation for the application subsequently made in respect of the costs given by the
order.
There must bean order in the terms of the prayer of the Petition 144 of 1894 and the respondent must pay the costs in this and in the District
Court.