JUDGMENT Sulaiman, C.J. - This is a Plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of damages against the Defendant. One Batti, who was the father of Bahori, who was the servant of the Plaintiff, had applied for being declared an insolvent. While the application was pending, the Defendant, who was one of the creditors of Batti, filed an application in the Insolvency Court on the 30th January, 1931, praying that a commissioner be appointed to go to the spot and to report as to whether or not the insolvent was in possession of some cattle and other articles, which it was alleged he was concealing. Admittedly an order for the attachment of the cattle and the articles was wrongly issued by the office, and the commissioner to whom the writ of attachment was sent went to the spot and attached the cattle. One of the cattle died before they were released. The Plaintiff's case was that the Defendant, in collusion with the office, obtained the writ of attachment without any proper order of the Court, and thereby caused loss to the Plaintiff. The Defendant denied this allegation. The learned Munsif in a very clear, elaborate and able judgment discussed the entire evidence in the case and came to the conclusion that the Defendant was responsible for the wrong attachment of the Plaintiff's cattle, and accordingly decreed the claim for damages. On appeal the Judge of the appellate Court upheld the finding so far as the liability of the Defendant was concerned, but reduced the amount of the damages and at the same time allowed to the Plaintiff costs of the trial Court but ordered that the parties should bear their own costs in his Court. There is a m irked contrast between the judgments of the two Courts. There is a m irked contrast between the judgments of the two Courts. The learned Munsif had taken great pains to point out that although the application filed by the creditor through Pandit Chiranji Lai had merely asked for the appointment of a commissioner in order to report whether the insolvent was in possession of the articles specified in the application, and the Court had not passed any express order that the articles should be- attached, the office issued a writ of attachment, which was taken over by the Defendant's Counsel's clerk personally and was handed over to the Defendant's son Bhola, who personally took it to the commissioner and accompanied him to the spot and pointed out the cattle, which were attached by the commissioner and placed in the charge of a custodian in the presence of the Defendant's son, and that the Defendant's son paid Rs. 31 to the commissioner as his fee for the work done, although the amount sanctioned by the Court was only Rs. 12. The conclusion at which the learned Munsif arrived, after considering the evidence in great detail and examining the conduct of the Defendant, not only prior to the issue of the writ of attachment, but also up to the time of the attachment, as well as his subsequent conduct in trying to obtain attachment in other ways, was that the Defendant had all along been anxious to get the property attached and that he had obtained the robkar from the office of the Insolvency Court. He accordingly held that it was clearly proved that the robkar had been obtained collusively and the Defendant was guilty of misconduct in obtaining it. 2. On appeal the lower appellate Court has not mentioned the important facts of this case leading up to the time when the attachment was actually effected. The learned Judge has mentioned the two points of view which were urged before him by the parties and has then remarked: There is no evidence on the record to accept in full the allegations of the Plaintiff but there can be no doubt that Jagannath was anxious to get the property attached. 3. The learned Judge has mentioned the two points of view which were urged before him by the parties and has then remarked: There is no evidence on the record to accept in full the allegations of the Plaintiff but there can be no doubt that Jagannath was anxious to get the property attached. 3. The learned Judge then went on to consider the attempt made by Jagannath to obtain attachment, and concluded: In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the action of Jagannath was bona-fide and he had no hand in getting the cattle attached by the commissioner. 4. He added: Moreover it seems to me that Jagannath was responsible for setting the machinery of the Court in motion and if, as a result of it, the property of a third person was attached, Jagannath cannot escape responsibility by saying that the attachment was due to a mistake on the part of the office of the Court. 5. The learned Judge, therefore, in effect upheld the finding of the trial Court so far as the liability of the Defendant was concerned, but omitted to recite the prominant facts which had been emphasised by the trial Court. Apparently it was this omission which misled the learned Judge of this Court, who considered that the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge was based on the sole and solitary ground of the subsequent conduct of the Defendant after the attachment had taken place. Had the lower appellate Court recited the relevant facts again, this misapprehension would not have occurred. 6. The whole conduct of the Defendant was, on the admitted facts, highly suspicious. He and his Counsel Knew that the prayer in the application merely was for the appointment of a commissioner in order that he might report whether the articles mentioned in the application were in the possession of the insolvent. The office reported that the actual section under which the application had been made was not quoted, and the only order which the Court passed thereon was: Appoint Mirza Shakir Husain. Fees fixed Rs. 12. 7. There was no order that the articles should be attached at all. Nevertheless the office issued a writ of attachment without any authority. The office reported that the actual section under which the application had been made was not quoted, and the only order which the Court passed thereon was: Appoint Mirza Shakir Husain. Fees fixed Rs. 12. 7. There was no order that the articles should be attached at all. Nevertheless the office issued a writ of attachment without any authority. That writ was handed over to the Defendant's Counsel's clerk, who apparently gave it to the, Defendant's son, who took it to the commissioner and then accompanied the commissioner to the spot and pointed out the cattle and got them attached and placed in the custody of a sapurdar and paid the fee of the commissioner. When the Plaintiff came to know of this attachment and rushed to the Court praying that his cattle should be released, the same Counsel appeared and insisted that the cattle should not be released until the Plaintiff deposited Rs. 250 in cash. It was on the objection-taken by the Defendant's Counsel in the presence of the Defendant in Court that the Plaintiff was compelled to obtain money from Bombay and make the deposit of Rs. 250 a few days afterwards. By that time one of the cattle actually died. The learned Munsif had viewed the conduct of the Defendant's Counsel, who knowing that he had not asked for any attachment at all, yet thought fit to object to the release of the cattle until cash security had been deposited, and observed. It is strange that Pandit Chiranji Lal, who knew that he had only applied for issue of a commissioner for reporting only, should not have been surprised at the attachment when the objection was filed and was put up before the Court and should not have brought this to the notice of the Court and straight away as said the Court to release it, instead of asking for cash security for Rs. 250 as a result of which the Plaintiff had to get money by with from Bombay Presidency to get a release order, and it was not before a week that the property Could be released. Lawyers are officials of the Court and as such are bound to help the Court. 8. These structures were fully deserved. 250 as a result of which the Plaintiff had to get money by with from Bombay Presidency to get a release order, and it was not before a week that the property Could be released. Lawyers are officials of the Court and as such are bound to help the Court. 8. These structures were fully deserved. The lower appellate Court has, without referring to the facts mentioned by the trial Court and without saying that they were correct, expressed the opinion that, the passages in the judgment of the learned Munsif where references hard been made to Pandit Chiranji Lal Counsel for the Defendant, and to which his attention had been particularly drawn, were not intended by the learned Munsif to cast aspersions against the said Counsel, and that he did not find any good grounds to criticise adversely the conduct of the Counsel in the course of the proceedings in the Insolvency Court. We think that the learned Judge has hopelessly erred in his interpretation of the passages in the judgment of the first Court, and has also erred in thinking that the Learned Counsel was not to blame. As a matter of fact, if the Learned Counsel who made the application had not insisted on the cash security being deposited before the, release, the Plaintiff's cattle would not have died and the Plaintiff would not have suffered damage. The lower appellate Court no doubt upheld the finding, but as it did not mention the main facts of the case emphasised by the trial Court, it based its finding more or less on the general conduct of the Defendant, which in itself was also open to grave suspicion, particularly the conduct between the date when the writ of attachment was obtained and the date when the cattle were actually attached. We must hold that the finding of the lower appellate Court was based on the entire circumstances of the case, and was to the effect that the conduct of the Defendant was not bona fide and that it could not be laid that he had no hand in getting the cattle attached by the commissioner, and further that Jagannath was responsible for setting the machinery of the Court in motion. It is not necessary for us to refer to the admissions made by the Defendant in the witness box, which have been quoted at great length by the learned Munsif and which go to show that he had been anxious to get the attachment and when he did not succeed, he adopted other tactics to get attachment, which ultimately proved infructuous. We think that the view taken by the learned Judge of this Court was based entirely on the unsatisfactory findings of the lower appellate Court and must be set aside. We must accept the finding that the Defendant is liable to pay damages. The question of the amount is a question of fact. The first Court had allowed a larger amount, but the lower appellate Court has reduced the amount to Rs. 51 only, which it considers to be sufficient to compensate the Plaintiff for the loss and trouble which he suffered. We think that this finding is binding upon us in this appeal. But the learned Subordinate Judge in appeal has not given any reasons whatever for not allowing to the Plaintiff the costs in his own Court. We accordingly allow this appeal, and setting aside the decree of the learned Judge of this Court, modify the decree of the lower appellate Court by granting to the Plaintiff a decree for damages to the extent of Rs. 51 with full costs in all Courts against the Defendant. The Plaintiff would be entitled to interest at 6 per cent, per annum on this amount from today till the date of realisation.