B.F. Saldanha Vs. Henry Hart - Court Judgment
|Judge||Ayling and ;Krishnan, JJ.|
|Reported in||(1920)ILR43Mad902; 58Ind.Cas.794|
|Cases Referred||Seshayyangar v. Jainulavadin I.L.R.|
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xli, rule 10 - security for costs--pauper appellant--jurisdiction of court to order a pauper appellant to furnish security for costs of respondent. - ayling, j.1. following the decisions in seshayyangar v. jainulavadin i.l.r(1880) ., mad., 66 and srinivasa sastrial v. subramania aiyer (1907) 17 m.l.j., 583 we must hold that the order of the district judge calling for security from the pauper appellant under order xli, rule 10, was not without jurisdiction. we have been referred to the decision of the bombay high court in khemraj shrikrishnadas v. kisanlala surajmal i.l.r.(1918) , 42 bom., 5 but we see no reason to question the decision of this court in seshayyangar v. jainulavadin i.l.r.,(1880) mad., 66 the correctness of which apparently has never been doubted by later benches of this court, and with which we are also disposed to agree.2. this petition is dismissed with costs.
1. Following the decisions in Seshayyangar v. Jainulavadin I.L.R(1880) ., Mad., 66 and Srinivasa Sastrial v. Subramania Aiyer (1907) 17 M.L.J., 583 we must hold that the order of the District Judge calling for security from the pauper appellant under Order XLI, Rule 10, was not without jurisdiction. We have been referred to the decision of the Bombay High Court in Khemraj Shrikrishnadas v. Kisanlala Surajmal I.L.R.(1918) , 42 Bom., 5 but we see no reason to question the decision of this Court in Seshayyangar v. Jainulavadin I.L.R.,(1880) Mad., 66 the correctness of which apparently has never been doubted by later Benches of this Court, and with which we are also disposed to agree.
2. This petition is dismissed with costs.