PITAMHARI DIBYA Vs. CHANDRASEKHAR PRAHARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the petitioner has filed an application under Rule 7 of Order 45, Civil P. C. and prays for permission to give property security in lieu of cash or Government securities. In order fully to appreciate the nature of this application a statement of the facts is necessary. The judgment of this Court in -' Chandrasekhar Praharaj v. Pitambari Dibya', A. I. R. 1953 Orissa 315 (A); against which leave to appeal was sought was delivered on 28-1-53, decreeing the suit filed by the opposite parties. On 10-3-53, the petitioner applied for a certificate that the value and nature of the suit fulfilled the requirements of Section 110, Civil P. C. On 21-4-53 a Bench of this Court ordered the issue of a certificate as the requirements of Section 110 had been satisfied and two days later the certificate was signed by the learned Judges who ordered the issue of the same. The petitioner thereafter moved the Court for stay of execution of the decree and we directed that half the costs incurred by the opposite parties in the lower court as well as In the appeal should be deposited as a condition precedent to the execution of the decree being stayed. On 20-7-53, the petitioner again applied for permission to give property security for the other half of the costs of the opposite party, and was granted one month's time to furnish property security for the unpaid half of the costs. On 6-8-53 the petitioner again applied for extension of time, fixed for depositing the costs of the opposite parties incurred in the lower court and we granted time accordingly till 10-8-53. On that date the petitioner filed the present application under Order 45 Rule 7, Civil P. C., praying that she be permitted to furnish property security for the costs of the respondent in lieu of cash or government securities. This was, obviously a prayer to substitute property security for the costs of the respondent in the Supreme Court appeal, as contemplated in Order 45, Rule 7; and not the costs of the plaintiff already incurred in this court and in the trial court. The petitioner also tendered a draft security bond executed by one Jagabandhu Misra for Rs. 4000/-to meet the costs of the respondent that may toe awarded by the Supreme Court. There is no separate prayer for extension of time for depositing, or for acceptance of security for depositing to printing costs. Paragraph 11 of the petition states that

(2.) The questions for consideration are:

(3.) Order 45, Rule 7 lays down that