JUDGMENT : Lyle, J. This is a suit on a security-bond. The plaintiffs are executors under a will of the deceased owner of an estate. One Gopi Nath was an employee of the estate and the respondent, Chet Ram, executed the security-bond binding himself to make good any losses if Gopi Nath should be proved in court to have committed embezzlement, etc. It is stated that Gopi Nath did embezzle a certain sum and the plaintiffs sued him and obtained a decree for a certain amount. Only a trifling amount was, however, realized from him. The plaintiffs, accordingly, sued the respondents on the ‘basis of the security-bond. The court of first instance decreed the suit. This decision, however, was reversed by the lower appellate court on two grounds, firstly, that section 139 of the Contract Act protects the respondents, and, secondly, that there was no proof of actual loss. I fail to see how section 139 applies, nor do I agree with the lower appellate court that the appellants ought to have sued Chet Ram in the first instance. No cause of action would accrue against Chet Ram until Gopi Nath was proved in court to have committed embezzlement. It also appears to me that the causes of action against the two men were totally different. Had Chet Ram been sued along with Gopi Nath in the first instance, the suit would certainly have been dismissed as against him as premature. In my opinion, Chet Ram has not lost his cause of action against Gopi Nath. No cause of action would accrue to him as against Gopi Nath until he is obliged to pay money in satisfaction of Gopi Nath's defalcations. 2. As regards the second ground of the lower appellate court's decision, the evidence of Hidayat Ali clearly proves the loss incurred by the appellant, quite apart from the judgment against Gopi Nath, which may or may not be evidence. The lower appellate court does not say that it disbelieves Hidayat Ali's evidence. It simply ignores it and says thers is no proof of loss. In my opinion, the lower appellate court's decision was clearly wrong. I, therefore, decree the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate court and restore that of the court of first instance. The appellant will get his costs in this and in the lower appellate court. It simply ignores it and says thers is no proof of loss. In my opinion, the lower appellate court's decision was clearly wrong. I, therefore, decree the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate court and restore that of the court of first instance. The appellant will get his costs in this and in the lower appellate court. The order of the court of first instance as to costs will stand.