PURNENDU NATH TAGORE Vs. RADHA KANTA JEW
LAWS(CAL)-1950-3-1
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on March 01,1950

PURNENDU NATH TAGORE Appellant
VERSUS
SREE SREE RADHA KANTA JEW Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Harries, C.J. - (1.) This is a somewhat unusual application. The petitioners were given leave to appeal to the Federal Court and the last day for depositing the security required by Order 45, Rule 7, Civil P. C was 28th February 1950. On 27th February 1950, the proposed appellants tendered security in immovable property which they value at over Rs. 20,060. This security was tendered in this Court within time and the question arises whether this Court can accept that security in lieu of cash or Government securities. Order 45, Rule 7, of the Code provides ; "Where the certificate is granted, the applicant shall, within ninety days or such further period, not exceeding sixty days, as the Court may upon cause shown allow from the date of the decree complained of, or within six weeks from the date of the grant of the certificate, whichever is the later date,- (a) furnish security is cash or in Government securities for the costs of the respondent, and (b) deposit the amount required to defray the expense of translating, transcribing, indexing and transmitting to His Majesty in Council a correct copy of the whole record of the suit.... 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: Provided further that no adjournment shall be granted to an opposite party to contest the nature of such security ...."
(2.) It is to be observed that the amount required to defray the expenses of translating and forwarding the record to Delhi has been deposited in cash and the only question is whether security in immovable property can be accepted in lieu of Rs. 4,000 in cash or in Government securities.
(3.) There can be no question that the proposed appellants could have asked for such an order when they obtained leave to appeal. The proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7, expressly permits the Court to allow such an application. However, no application was made at the time of ranting the certificate for leave to appeal and the question arises whether it can be made now.;


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