RAMAKRISHNA AYYAR DHARMAM BY ITS HEREDITARY TRUSTEE, RAMAKRISHNA AYYAR AND ANR. Vs. UMAR SALAI MUHAMMAD SAIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal pursuant to the provisions of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of this Court against an order of Rajamannar, J., made on the 26th August, 1947, directing the appellant before the learned Judge to furnish security for the respondents' costs, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 10 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant challenges the correctness of that order.

(2.) THE appellant instituted a suit in forma pauperis in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madura. The suit was dismissed. He has now preferred an appeal also in forma pauperis against the learned Judge's dismissal. It is in respect of that appeal that the order, now appealed against, was made.

(3.) THERE is no doubt that, so far as this High Court is concerned, the provisions of Order 41, Rule 10, have application to appeals in forma pauperis. It was so found in Seshayyangar v. Jainulavadin, I.L.R. (1880) Mad. 66 where it was observed that since leave to appeal in forma pauperis is given only when there is a prima facie reason for believing there are substantial grounds of appeal, very special grounds should be shown before a Court should be called upon to order security and to apply the provisions of Rule 10 of Order 1. That decision was given by this Court some 67 years ago, and in a considerable number of decisions, mostly by Benches of two Judges, the correctness of it has not been questioned, and it has been followed.