THOTA PITCHAIAH Vs. M VEDANTA NARASIMHACHARYULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for permitting the petitioners to furnish immoveable property security for the costs of the respondents in the place of cash security and to extend the time for complying with Order 45, rule 7, Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) The petitioners, who lost the appeal in the Madras High Court, applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. This Court granted leave by order dated 17th March, 1955. The petitioners did not furnish security in cash as provided for by Order 45, rules 7, Civil Procedure Code. Having made default, they have filed the present application for permitting them to give security in immoveable property in the place of security in cash. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that this Court has no power to permit the petitioners to do so as under the proviso to rule 7 of Order 45, the petitioners should have asked for that relief at the time when the certificate was granted. The said proviso reads :

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, argues that that rule is subject to Order 12, rule 3 of Supreme Court Rules, which says :-