Skip to content


Thadikonda Sreeramamurthy Vs. Mannaluri Rama Rao and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1939)2MLJ521
AppellantThadikonda Sreeramamurthy
RespondentMannaluri Rama Rao and anr.
Cases ReferredArunachala Naidu v. Balakrishna and Co.
Excerpt:
- .....requires a person to whom a certificate is granted to furnish security in cash or in government securities for the costs of the respondent, but there is a proviso which says that the court at the time of granting the certificate may, on the ground of special hardship order that some other form of security may be furnished. at the time of the grant of the certificate the petitioner made no application for permission to furnish security otherwise than in cash or in government securities, but on the 24th march he filed a petition asking the court to accept security in the form of immovable property. this petition is now before us.2. the learned advocate for the respondents has taken a preliminary objection, and has pointed out that this question has already been decided by a bench of.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. On the 16th March, 1938, this Court granted to the petitioner a certificate permitting him to appeal to His Majesty in Council. Order 45, Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code requires a person to whom a certificate is granted to furnish security in cash or in Government securities for the costs of the respondent, but there is a proviso which says that the Court at the time of granting the certificate may, on the ground of special hardship order that some other form of security may be furnished. At the time of the grant of the certificate the petitioner made no application for permission to furnish security otherwise than in cash or in Government securities, but on the 24th March he filed a petition asking the Court to accept security in the form of immovable property. This petition is now before us.

2. The learned advocate for the respondents has taken a preliminary objection, and has pointed out that this question has already been decided by a Bench of this Court in Arunachala Naidu v. Balakrishna and Co. (1924) 48 M.L.J. 134 : I.L.R. 48 Mad. 559. There Venkatasubba Rao and Srinivasa Iyengar, JJ., held that the proviso to Order 45, Rule 7 to which I have referred precludes the Court from granting an application of this nature at a later stage. This decision is binding on us and we do not question its correctness. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has been unable to point to any Privy Council rule which has the effect of overriding this proviso, and that being so it must be given effect to.

3. he preliminary objection succeeds arid the application must be dismissed with costs.


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