Skip to content


Venkatrao Shriniwasrao Vs. Basavprabhu Sirdesai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Application No. 364 of 1943 in F.A. No. 311 of 1938
Judge
Reported inAIR1944Bom352; (1944)46BOMLR724
AppellantVenkatrao Shriniwasrao
RespondentBasavprabhu Sirdesai
Excerpt:
practice-appeal-privy council-consolidation of appeals-security for casts.;where more appeals than erne are consolidatedi for the purpose of hearing before the privy council, the security for costs is payable separately for each of the appeals so consolidated. - section 31(4) (since repealed) :[tarun chatterjee & h.l.dattu, jj] jurisdiction of high court - respondent, a government company, chartered appellants vessel to carry rock phosphate from togo to west coast india - dispute arose between parties - under agreement, respondent had chosen mumbai as port of delivery vessel carrying rock phosphate was delivered at port of bombay - application filed by respondent earlier before delhi high court for appointment of certain individual as arbitrator had become infructuous because of his..........were different although the respondent was the same.7. the appellant will have a fortnight from today to pay the amount of security for the other appeal. costs costs in appeal.
Judgment:

Divatia, J.

1. This application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council has been placed before us at the instance of Mr. Jahagirdar, the learned advocate for the applicant. He says that the Registrar's office has wrongly asked for separate security for costs for the two different appeals which have been ordered to be consolidated by this Court.

2. There are two different appellants in the two appeals against the same respondent on a common point. Mr. Jahagirdar contends that, as this Court has passed the order for consolidation, the order for the deposit of security for costs, i.e. Rs. 4,000, must be for one appeal and not for both.

3. Order XLV, Rule 4, simply empowers this Court to make an order for consolidation for pecuniary valuation, but it does not say. anything about taking security for costs in such a case. Rule 7 of the Privy Council Rules of 1920 is as foflows :-

Where there are two or more appeals arising out of the same matter, and the Court is of opinion that it would be for the convenience of the Lordships of the Judicial Committee and all parties concerned that the appeals should be consolidated, the Court may direct the appeals to be consolidated.

4. There is no rule either in the Privy Council Rules of 19210 or of 1925 under which there may be only one set of costs in the consolidated appeals. In the absence of any provisions in the Civil Procedure Code or in the Privy Council Rules it cannot be said that whenever there is an order of consolidation the order of security for costs should be only for one appeal.

5. In the present case the appellants are different although the point is common, and we do not think that an order of security for costs in one appeal only could be made. We are of opinion, therefore, that the Taxing Officer is right in demanding two separate securities for the two different appeals which have been consolidated.

6. There are no reported decisions on this point. The only one which throws some light on the point is Mussammat Bibi Nabi Zohra v. RaiBaijnath Goenka Bahadur (1919) 4 P. L.J. 198. There also the appellants were different although the respondent was the same.

7. The appellant will have a fortnight from today to pay the amount of security for the other appeal. Costs costs in appeal.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //