JUDGMENT 1. This is a reference by the Munsif of Banka, under Order XLVI, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, for a decision whether a certain bond [1] is enforceable at law. It appears to us that it is not so enforceable. It binds down the executant to daily attendance and manual labour until a certain sum is re-paid in a certain mouth and penalises default with overwhelming interest. It is remarkable that the suit, which id brought on the Musnif's opinion, is probably due to the fact that the executor is too poor to defend himself. Such a condition is indistinguishable from slavery, and such a contract is, in our opinion, opposed to public policy and not enforceable. [1] The bond was as follows: * I have borrowed Rs. 13 in cash from Ram Sarup Bhagat, inhabitant of Bandara, to meet my household expenditure. In satisfaction of interest, I shall daily remain in attendance, and plough the land of the said Bhagat, work with spade in his land, transplant his seedlings, thresh his crops by means of danni, etc., and shall perform and manage all works required from me. 1 shall take wages and bntad (food) according to the usage of the said village. In the year...wish to re-pay the money, I shall re-pay it in the month of Baisdkh of that year in one lump sum, and then I will leave his work. I shall not re-pay money in any other month except the month of Baisakh. If I absent myself from work without re-paying the money, then I shall pay interest at the rate of Rs. 6-4 per cent, per mensem from the date of absence to the day of realization. I have, therefore, executed this harwahi (ploughman's) bond on the above conditions so that it may be of use, when required.