Ayling, J.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.
B.f. Saldanha v. Henry Hart
B.f. Saldanha v. Henry Hart
(High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad)
| 13-07-1920
Advocate List
Bench
- HON'BLE JUSTICE KRISHNAN, J
- HON'BLE JUSTICE AYLING, J
Eq Citations
- 58 IND. CAS. 794
- LQ/AllHC/1920/246
Head Note
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 41 R. 10 or Or. 41 R. 10-A — Security for costs — Appellant pauper — Held, order of District Judge calling for security from pauper appellant under Or. 41 R. 10 not without jurisdiction
