Mitter, J.@mdashIn this case two objections have been raised before us in appeal: First, that the judgment of the lower Court is wrong in allowing interest upon costs when the decree does not expressly award it. Secondly, that the lower Court was not right in awarding interest upon the principal sum decreed after the 18th September, 1876, when the judgment-debtor deposited the money due from him in the Collector''s office, and that at any rate the lower Court should not have awarded interest after the date when the Collector of Burdwan by a roobocary informed the Court that he had no objection to pay the money deposited to the decree-holder.
2. As regards the first question, although it seems that the practice of the Court was not uniform for some time upon this matter, the later decisions establish that this Court has refused to allow interest upon costs in cases where the decree is silent about it. Of these latter cases Ulfutunnissa v. Mohan Lal Sukal 6 B.L.R. App. 33 and Ameeromiissa Khatoon v. Meer Mahomet Mozaffir Hossein Chowdry 18 W.R. 103 are clearly in point. We think that these decisions are in accordance with the principle laid down in the Full Bench decision 6 W.R.F.R. Mis. Rul. 109. Following these decisions, we therefore think that the judgment of the lower Court upon this point is not right. The judgment-creditor is not entitled to interest upon the costs awarded in the decree.
3. The learned Judge then proceeded to consider the other objection, which is not material to this report.
Markby, J.
4. I concur.
