1. This Rule is directed against an order by which on the 20th of August 1917 the Munsif of Netrakona, exercising Small Cause Court powers, dismissed a suit brought by the plaintiff-petitioner.
2. It appears that the plaintiff engaged the services of a 'Ghatu', or dancing and singing boy, for a period of 3 months at Rs. 35 a month. He next contracted with the principal defendant that for one month for a payment of its. 45 the boy should give exhibitions in accordance with arrangements made by the defendants. The defendants in fact detained the boy for a period of 1 month and 24 days. After crediting a payment of Rs. 6 the plaintiff now sues the defendants to recover a sum of Rs. 76-8-0 at the agreed rate of Rs. 45 a month.
3. The Small Cause Court Judge finds all the facts in favour of the plaintiff, bat dismisses the suit on the ground that the contract between the plaintiff and the defendants was contrary to public policy. In coming to this conclusion he appears to have been influenced by some suspicion that the employment of the boy was connected with immoral practices. But of any such user there is no evidence. There is further no suggestion that the engagement with the defendant or defendants was contrary to the wishes of either the boy or his parents. The plaintiff was then in the position of an impresario, and the contract having been fulfilled the defendant must pay the sum he agreed to pay in consideration of the artiste's services.
4. The order of the Small Cause Court Judge is, therefore, set aside, and the plaintiff's claim decreed against both defendants, with costs in the Court below and the costs of this Rule; the hearing fee we assess at one gold mohur.