C.C. Ghose, J.In my opinion, the order complained of cannot be supported. The appeal was filed on 14th July 1928 and the application on which the order complained of was made was not put in till 6th February 1929. It is elementary that, if a party to a suit tar appeal desires to apply for security for Costs, he must do it promptly. Otherwise, the order made on such an application may have the effect of stifling the suit or appeal. In that view of the matter, the orders of 12th February and 23rd February 1929 must be set aside. As the opposite party does not appear, there will be no order as to costs.
Are you looking for a
legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a
legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and
Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.
Sachindra Nath Dutt v. Secy. Of State For India And Others
Sachindra Nath Dutt v. Secy. Of State For India And Others
(High Court Of Judicature At Calcutta)
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT | 26-07-1929
Advocate List
Bench
- HON'BLE JUSTICE C.C. Ghose, J
Eq Citations
- 129 IND. CAS. 319
- AIR 1930 CAL 520
- LQ/CalHC/1929/248
Head Note
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 26 Rr. 9 and 10 — Security for costs — Application for — Time-limit for — Application for security for costs, held, must be made promptly, otherwise it may have effect of stifling suit or appeal — Security for Costs — Time-limit for application for — Application for security for costs, held, must be made promptly, otherwise it may have effect of stifling suit or appeal — Costs — Application for security for costs — Time-limit for — Practice and Procedure
