THOTA PITCHAIAH Vs. M VEDANTA NARASIMHACHARYULU
LAWS(APH)-1955-12-1
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on December 06,1955

THOTA PITCHAIAH Appellant
VERSUS
M.VEDANTA NARASIMHACHARYULU Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BURJORE AND BHAVANI PRASAD V. BHAGANA [REFERRED TO]
AMNACHALA NAIDU V. BALAKRISHNA AND CO [REFERRED TO]
J.N.SURLY V. T.S.CHETTIYAR FIRM [REFERRED TO]
RAMAYYA V. LAKSHMAYYA [REFERRED TO]
NILAKANTHA BALWANT V. VIDYA NARSINHA BHARATI [REFERRED TO]
SREERAMAMURTHY V. RAMA RAO [REFERRED TO]
ISMAIL PIPERDI V. MOHIN BIBI [REFERRED TO]
REVANSHIDAYA V. GUDNAYA [REFERRED TO]
GHULAM RASUL V. GHULAM QUTAB-UD-DIN [REFERRED TO]
PURNENDU NATH TAGORE VS. RADHA KANTA JEW [REFERRED TO]
PITAMHARI DIBYA VS. CHANDRASEKHAR PRAHARAJ [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Subba Rao, CJ. - (1.)This is an application for permitting the petitioners to furnish immoveable property security for the costs of the respondents in the place of cash security and to extend the time for complying with Order 45, rule 7, Civil Procedure Code.
(2.)The petitioners, who lost the appeal in the Madras High Court, applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. This Court granted leave by order dated 17th March, 1955. The petitioners did not furnish security in cash as provided for by Order 45, rules 7, Civil Procedure Code. Having made default, they have filed the present application for permitting them to give security in immoveable property in the place of security in cash. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that this Court has no power to permit the petitioners to do so as under the proviso to rule 7 of Order 45, the petitioners should have asked for that relief at the time when the certificate was granted. The said proviso reads :
"Provided that the Court at the time of granting the certificate may, after hearing any opposite party who appears, order on the ground of special hardship that some other form of security may be furnished."

(3.)Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, argues that that rule is subject to Order 12, rule 3 of Supreme Court Rules, which says :-
"Where an appellant, having obtained a certificate from the High Court, fails to furnish the security or make the deposit required, that Court may, on its own motion or on application in that behalf made by the respondent, cancel the certificate and may give such directions as to the cost of the appeal and the security entered into by the appellant as it shall think fit or make such further or other order as the justice of the case requires."

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.