P. MURUGAYYA PILLAI Vs. SEETHALAKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition is directed against the order of the learned District Munsif, Nagapattinam, whereby he held that the petitioner had not sufficiently complied with the order of the District Court of East Tanjore at Nagapattinam in C.M.P. No. 10 of 1955. That order of the District Judge was passed in an appeal preferred against the decree of the District Munsif, Nagapattinam, in O.S. No. 91 of 1953. The purport of the order was that the appellant was to deposit costs of suit into the lower Court and furnish security in the shape of Immovable properties for the amount of the decree as a condition of stay of further proceedings. The time given by the appellate Court for furnishing security and depositing costs ended with 20th March, 1956. Admittedly, costs of suit were deposited within the time allowed and a draft bond containing the description of the property proposed to be given as security was put into Court by the petitioner on 20th March, 1956, the last date of the period of thirty days granted by the appellate Court for this purpose. Objection was taken to the acceptance of this draft bond, and this, objection was upheld by the learned District Munsif relying upon the decision in Marimuthu Gounder v. Ponnammal : (1956)2MLJ25 This decision followed a prior decision in Kali Setti Penchalu Setti v. Potireddi Subba Reddi : AIR1943Mad520 . In both these cases, it was held that a mere draft written on unstamped paper was not sufficient compliance with the order of a Court directing security of immovable property to be furnished by a particular date.

(2.) MR . Jagadisa Ayyar, the learned Counsel for the respondent contends that giving security or furnishing security of Immovable property usually ordered by appellate Courts as a condition of granting stay of further proceedings before the trial Court or other relief permissible under the Civil Procedure Code stands on a par with giving security mentioned in Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act as a condition precedent to making an application for setting aside an ex parte decree passed in a small cause suit. In the case of security mentioned in Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, there has been a uniform course of decisions in this Court, starting from the decision of Ramesam, J., in Balakrishna Ayyar v. Pichamuthu Pillai, (1921) 15 L.W. 186 followed by the decision of King, J., in Chathiyelan Kanna Kurup v. Raman Nayar : AIR1943Mad51 and culminating in the decision of the Bench of this Court consisting of Govinda Menon and Ramaswami, JJ., in Marimuthu Gounder v. Ponnammal : (1956)2MLJ25 . These decisions have all held that furnishing security within the meaning of Section 17 of the Small Cause Courts Act should be construed as putting into Court a properly drafted security bond engrossed on stamp paper, which, if approved by the Court, could be converted into an enforceable security in law. Mr. Jagadisa Ayyar argues with some force that there should be no distinction in principle between furnishing security as required under Section 17 of the Small Cause Courts Act and giving security in other cases governed by the Civil Procedure Code, where the purpose is the same.

(3.) THERE will be no order as to costs.