AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 133 words
1.
We agree that there would be no appeal in this case but for the fact that the commissioner set the court in motion as ii he were a party to the
decree, and, therefore, cannot now be allowed to turn round and say that his application is not made u/s 244 of the Code. The order appealed
against is clearly wrong. The order for payment of fees to the commissioner is not an order which can be ''executed at the instancs of the
commissioner as if he were party to a decree.
2.
The order ought to have provided for payment of the money into court (Section 397) or it was open for the commissioner to sue.
3.
We inust reverse the order as one made without jurisdiction and with costs throughout.