Judgment.- In these two civil revision petitions, a small point arises. Though the cause can be disposed of an the ground of de minimis ,.on carat lex yet as third party’s rights are involved, I am inclined to go into it. In a small cause suit, one Dharmalinga Thevar obtained a decree against Thayumana Thevar, and in execution thereof attached the bulls belonging to the judgment-debtor. The bulls were attached by the amin in due process of execution and was entrusted with the decree-holder himself and on such entrustment, both the decree-holder and one Kandaswami Thevar executed a surety bond for production of these two bulls at any time when called upon to do so by the Court. The judgment-debtor paid off the suit amount on 3rd July, 1973 and sought for the release of the bulls. The Court took some time for passing an order to raise the attachment, and actually the order releasing the bulls from attachment was made on 10th July, 1973. The judgment-debtor has now come forward with an application under section 47 read with sections 144, 145 and 151, Civil Procedure Code, for the recovery of a Sum of Rs. 10 per diem as compensation for the deprivation of the use of the bulls after he has satisfied the decree as above. The Court below granted such compensation to the judgment-debtor Thayumana Thevar for the period commencing from 3rd July, 1973 ending with 15th July, 1973 which was the actual date when the bulls were released and handed over to the judgment-debtor. In all, it granted a sum of Rs. 130 as such compensation. 2. The surety Kandaswamy Thevar in turn, whilst the above proceedings were is progress, filed another application under section 47, Civil Procedure Code, stating that he had to be reimbursed for the feeding charges of the bulls, which were admittedly in his custody from 3rd to 15th July, 1973. He claimed a sum of Rs. 45 towards such feeding charges. The Courts below after having granted the compensation of Rs. 130 to the judgment-debtor, denied the relief to the sureties who were admittedly in custody of the bulls between 3rd to 15th July, 1973. 3. The question is how to adjust the equities as between the parties. He claimed a sum of Rs. 45 towards such feeding charges. The Courts below after having granted the compensation of Rs. 130 to the judgment-debtor, denied the relief to the sureties who were admittedly in custody of the bulls between 3rd to 15th July, 1973. 3. The question is how to adjust the equities as between the parties. That compensation had to be paid to the judgment-debtor for the deprivation of his right to use his own bulls after he has fully paid off the decree amount is a sustainable and just request. But the question is as to what is the period to which he is entitled to relief. No doubt, he paid off the decree amount on 3rd July, 1973. But the Court had passed the order raising the attachment only on 10th July, 1973. As acts of Court cannot prejudice a litigant and as without an act of Court, the release of the bulls cannot be made and as these two events run concurrently and equities had to be adjusted in the above set of events and circumstances, it appears to me that the judgment-debtor can only ask for compensation for the deprivation of his right to use his own bulls only from 10th July, 1973 and ending with 15th July, 1973. He would be, therefore, entitled on his own rate of calculation to a sum of Rs. 60 and not Rs. 130. To this extent, C.R.P. No. 693 of 1974 is allowed. 4. As regards the claim of the surety for feeding charges, it is obvious that no person, and much less, as animal, can, live on air and water. The bulls ought to be fed. Even otherwise, there is a provision in the Civil Rules of Practice that in case where the livestock is attached and kept in Court custody for or for and on behalf of the Court, it is obligatory for that party who keeps such livestock to be reimbursed towards the feeding charges. That the sureties kept the bulls for the period commencing from 3rd July, 1973 and ending with 15th July 1973 is not in dispute. For the said period, the surety has claimed only a sum of Rs. 45. This appears to be a reasonable charge. Therefore, the Court below ought to have allowed such charges and ought not to have dismissed it or negatived it on irrelevant grounds. For the said period, the surety has claimed only a sum of Rs. 45. This appears to be a reasonable charge. Therefore, the Court below ought to have allowed such charges and ought not to have dismissed it or negatived it on irrelevant grounds. C.R.P. No. 694 of 1973 is also allowed to the extend indicated. 5. There will be no order as to costs in both. The Civil Revision Petitions.