Skip to content


Trimbak Y. Nene Vs. Ramchandra B. Tilak - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberO.C.J. Appeal No. 22 of 1932 and Suit No. 2490 of 1923
Judge
Reported inAIR1933Bom120; (1933)35BOMLR37
AppellantTrimbak Y. Nene
RespondentRamchandra B. Tilak
Excerpt:
bombay high court (o.s.) rules, 1930, rule 707-security for costs-appellant-respondent asking for additional security on the ground that costs of appeal are likely to be heavy-sufficient cause-practice.;it is not open to respondent to demand further security from appellant, under rule 767 of the bombay high court rules, 1930, (0.s.), on the ground that the amount of the costs of the appeal is likely to be heavy.;ahmed bin shaik essa kaliffa v. shaik essa bin kaliffa (1888) i.l.r. 13 bom. 458 and ratanchand v. damji (1923) 25 bom. l.r. 468, followed. - - if the matter were res integra it might well be contended that the fact that the costs of the appeal are likely to be heavy is one ground for saying that sufficient cause has been shown for increasing the amount of the security......motion by the respondent asking for an order on the appellant to deposit further security in the appeal. the ground on which the application is made is substantially this that the appeal is likely to bo a very heavy one, and that the costs will very greatly exceed the sum of rs. 500 which has been lodged as security in the normal course. rule 767 of the high court rules (o.s.) provides that the appellate court may in its discretion on sufficient cause being shown order that such further amount shall be deposited by the appellant as security for the costs of the respondent in the appeal...as it think fit. if the matter were res integra it might well be contended that the fact that the costs of the appeal are likely to be heavy is one ground for saying that sufficient cause has been.....
Judgment:

John Beaumont, C.J.

1. This is a notice of motion by the respondent asking for an order on the appellant to deposit further security in the appeal. The ground on which the application is made is substantially this that the appeal is likely to bo a very heavy one, and that the costs will very greatly exceed the sum of Rs. 500 which has been lodged as security in the normal course. Rule 767 of the High Court Rules (O.S.) provides that the appellate Court may in its discretion on sufficient cause being shown order that such further amount shall be deposited by the appellant as security for the costs of the respondent in the appeal...as it think fit. If the matter were res integra it might well be contended that the fact that the costs of the appeal are likely to be heavy is one ground for saying that sufficient cause has been shown for increasing the amount of the security. But the current of authority in this Court has undoubtedly been against that view, There appears to bo no reported case in which further security has been ordered merely on the ground that the amount of the costs of the appeal is likely to be heavy. On the other hand I think the cases of Ahmed bin Shaik Essa Kalifa v. Shaik Essa bin Kaliffa I.L.R. (1988) Bom. 458 and Ratanchand v. Damji (1823) 25 Bom. L.R. 468 show that that is a ground on which the Court will not act.

2. It is desirable that the practice should bo settled, and we ought, therefore, to follow the decisions which have been given. If any alteration is to be made, it should be by way of altering the rule, and not by judicial decisions under the rule at variance with former decisions. We must, therefore, dismiss the notice of motion with costs.

Rangnekar, J.

3. I agree.


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