1. This is an application for security for costs against the plaintiff who is a married woman. The suit is clearly a said for payment of money and, therefore, falls within Order XXV, Rule 1, Sub-rule 3. The only question is whether this is a case in which the Court ought to order security for costs to be given. The plaintiff is an actress, and the defendant is a theatre Manager and owner, and runs a Company in which the plaintiff was an actress. According to the plaintiff's allegations, she has been improperly dismissed by the defendant and the suit is brought to recover damages for wrongful dismissal. The only question I have got to decide is, is this a case in which on the materials before the Court, the Court ought to order the plaintiff to give security? It has been pointed oat by Mr. Justice Bale in the case of Shima Sundary Dassee v. Rash Behary Dhur 3 C.W.N. 753 that security under this Order ought not to be ordered unless grounds are shown tending to show that the defence is true. On the materials before me, there is nothing to show what the defence is at all. Whether it is a true defence or whether there is any defence at all, I do not at present know. The defendant has neither filed his written statement nor affidavit setting out what are the grounds on which he is going to defend his suit. There is no material before me on which I can form an opinion as to whether the grounds tend to show that the defence is true. That being so, following the decision of Mr. Justice Sale, I am of opinion that I have no jurisdiction to make the order asked for. The present application, therefore, fails and must be dismissed with costs.