ORDER : 1. This is defendants' revision petition challenging the judgment and decree in civil suit No. 202 of 1951 in the Court of the Small Causes, Bhopal. 2. The plaintiff-non-applicant, sued the defendants for recovery of a loan of Rs. 300/-which was said to have been advanced by him to the petitioners for being deposited with the Secretary of Wakf property so that it would be possible for the latter to withdraw a criminal case against the defendant No. 1 for embezzlement of certain money of the said property. The defendants-petitioners had denied the claim wholesale and the learned Judge of the lower Court finding that the loan was proved, passed a decree. It may be noted that there was no contention that the consideration or object of the contract of the loan was immoral or against public policy and as such the contract was void. 3. The very first ground in the revision petition is that the decree and order of the lower Court was against public policy. It is obvious, though the contention has not been correctly stated, that the petitioners contend that the consideration or object of the contract of the loan was against public policy and therefore the contract could not be enforced. The point for determination, therefore, is whether the contract of the loan is unenforceable as now contended. Ordinarily the defendant must raise, in his pleading, all matters which show the suit to be non-maintainable or that the transaction could not be enforced on account of reasons to be stated and all such grounds of defence as, if not raised, are likely to take the opposite party by surprise or would raise issues of fact not arising put of the plaint or the written statement. The Courts are however bound to take notice of any ground of any illegality appearing on facts not only stated in the party's pleading but also disclosed otherwise and the authority in support of this latter view is that a Court can frame an issue if it found that it arose out of the pleadings or is involved therein. 4. In 'ABDULA SAHEB v. GURUVAPPA and CO.', AIR 1944 Mad 387 there is a quotation of the words of Lord Mansfield in an English case ('HARRY PARKER LTD. v. MASON', (1940) 2 KB 590). 4. In 'ABDULA SAHEB v. GURUVAPPA and CO.', AIR 1944 Mad 387 there is a quotation of the words of Lord Mansfield in an English case ('HARRY PARKER LTD. v. MASON', (1940) 2 KB 590). The quotation bears reproduction, and is as below : "The objection that a contract is immoral or illegal as between plaintiff and defendant sounds at all times very ill in the mouth of the defendant. It is not for his sake, however, that the objection is ever allowed; but it is founded on general principles of policy, which the defendant has the advantage of contrary to the real justice, as between him and the plaintiff, by accident, if I may say so. No Court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act. If, from the plaintiff's own stating or otherwise, the cause of action appears to arise ex turpi causa or the transgression of a positive law of this country, there the Court says he has no right to be assisted. It is upon that ground the Court goes; not for the sake of the defendant, but because they will not lend their aid to such a plaintiff. So if the plaintiff and defendant were to change sides, and the defendant was to bring his action against the plaintiff, the latter would then have the advantage of it." It would thus appear that where there is a pleading or otherwise, as soon as the Court finds that the contract which is sought to be enforced, militates against public policy, it is bound to refuse to enforce it no matter when and where the contention is made. It is in this view that though the contention was not made on the facts pleaded by the deft., that it was allowed to be made in this Court. 5. Examining the record, therefore, minutely and particularly the plaint, it is found that the plff's case was that the deft. 1 had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 700 and odd and was in Police custody since 12-5-49. The deft. 2 who is a son of deft. 1 approached the plff. and asked him for a loan of Rs. 300 on behalf of defts. 1 and 2 so that it would be deposited and the deft. 1 had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 700 and odd and was in Police custody since 12-5-49. The deft. 2 who is a son of deft. 1 approached the plff. and asked him for a loan of Rs. 300 on behalf of defts. 1 and 2 so that it would be deposited and the deft. No. 1 would be released and then both of them would repay the loan. The plff. then deposited Rs. 300 with the secretary of the wakf property who was collecting the amount of the wakf. The deft. 1 was in the end released. Now the question is whether there is anything in the evidence on record which indicates that the consideration or object of the contract was immoral or against public policy. In so far as the plaint is concerned, in my opinion, there is nothing in it to support the contention. Sadduruddin (P. W. 2), the Secretary of the Wakf Committee, stated that the amount embezzled was deposited on behalf of the deft. and he was released in the result. There is evidence of Kudratullah (P. W. 3) that the plff. advanced the money to be deposited on behalf of the deft. 1 so that he could be released. 6. The question, however, is whether the consideration or object of the loan as between the plff. and the defts. was to stiffle the prosecution against the deft. 1. In Mohanlal Jagannath v. Kashiram Gokul, AIR 1950 Nag 71 it has been held that : "Any agreement arrived at between the parties for compounding a non-compoundable offence or for withdrawal or abandonment of the prosecution for such an offence is a contract opposed to public policy and void under S. 23, Contract Act." In that case, the party had agreed to transfer his -/2/-proprietary share to the opposite party who in his turn had agreed to see that the prosecution against the former for an offence under S. 457, Penal Code, was withdrawn. In the case on hand, however, it did not lie either with the plff. or with the deft. to withdraw the prosecution. In fact, there was no agreement between the plff. and the defts. in the matter of the prosecution nor was the stiffling of the prosecution the consideration or the object of the contract. In the case on hand, however, it did not lie either with the plff. or with the deft. to withdraw the prosecution. In fact, there was no agreement between the plff. and the defts. in the matter of the prosecution nor was the stiffling of the prosecution the consideration or the object of the contract. It is not said anywhere on the record that there was an agreement between the Wakf Secretary and the deft. 1 that the prosecution would be withdrawn on deposit of the embezzled amount nor is there any evidence to show that the plff. knew of any such agreement. Sadduruddin (P. W. 2) does not say a word about it. 7. The learned counsel for the applicants referred to the decision in S. Vairawa Nadar v. Pothikachala Nadar, AIR 1936 Mad 603 wherein it is observed : "Where a person lends money to a partnership which is an illegal one or forbidden by law, with the knowledge that it is going to be used for purposes forbidden by law, a suit by him to recover the amount so lent is not maintainable." Here again, however, the case is liable to be distinguished because in that case the plff. knew that the money was going to be used for a purpose forbidden by law. That was not so in the case on hand. Whether the full or part of the embezzled amount was deposited or not, the discretion of withdrawing the prosecution against the deft. 1 was entirely with the Wakf Committee of which Sadruddin was the Secretary. None of the parties was or could be certain that the prosecution would be withdrawn and therefore even if the plff. knew of the motive of the deft. 1 to support his request for withdrawal of the. prosecution with an accompanying deposit still that, in my opinion, could not militate against the contract or its consideration or the object as being opposed to public policy. knew of the motive of the deft. 1 to support his request for withdrawal of the. prosecution with an accompanying deposit still that, in my opinion, could not militate against the contract or its consideration or the object as being opposed to public policy. In this connection reference may be made to the decision in Dehra Dun Mussoorie Electric Tramway Co., Ltd. v. Official Liquidators, AIR 1930 All 357 wherein it is observed that : "Motive is essentially different from the consideration or object of the contract and the fact that the contract was entered into in the expectation of some ulterior gain would not affect the contract which is valid in every way." In Kashinath v. Bapurao, 191 Ind Cas 241: AIR 1940 Nag 305, it is observed that : "Section 23, Contract Act, is not concerned with motive. It confines the Court to the object of the transaction and not to the reasons or motives which prompted it. The law does not prevent even the most degraded of men from having their own friends and from receiving gifts from them whatever the motive of the donors may be, provided the object is not to induce or encourage the commission of an illegal act." 8. As pointed out above, therefore, there is nothing in the evidence, much less in the pleadings to suggest that the object or the consideration of the contract of the loan, by the plff., to the defts., was immoral or was hit by the consideration of the public policy. It being so the contract was liable to be enforced, and the decree of the lower Court is correct. 9. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs and the petitioners are ordered to pay the costs of the non-petitioners. Counsel's fees would be Rs. 15 for each side if certified. Revision dismissed.