SURAJ KUAR Vs. SANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's application in revision under Section 115, Civil P.C., arising out of an order demanding security for the costs of a suit. The applicant is a woman, and she instituted a suit for possession of property, the valuation being Rs. 6000. The opposite party applied to the learned Judge demanding security for costs from the applicant. Admittedly, the provisions of Order 25, Rule 1, Civil P.C., do not apply in terms, but the learned Judge, purporting to act in the exercise of his inherent powers under Section 151, Civil P.C., has allowed the application of the opposite party and has called upon the applicant to deposit security in the amount of Rs. 1000 for the costs of defendants 1 and 2. Learned Counsel for the applicant contends that this order was without jurisdiction. Alternatively, it is pleaded that the amount demanded was far in excess of what was required as security for costs, and this is conceded. It appears that litigation in respect to this property has been going on for about seven years. The applicant claims to have succeeded as the sole heir of her father in January 1933, but she has now appeared in the arena for the first time. The learned Judge says: It is only when the litigation has finally ended in the victory of defendants 1 and 2 over defendants 3 and 4 in the High Court that plaintiff has suddenly come forward with the allegation that she has had no knowledge of all this litigation although she has from the start been heir in possession. When therefore defendants 1 and 2 allega that she is merely a puppet put up by defendants 3 and 4 in an effort to re-open the litigation which has ended unsuccessfully, it is clear, without in any way pre-judging the suit, that their allegation is plausible and may in the end be substantiated. It seems to me that when defendants allegations are sufficient to make out plausible grounds then the Court should certainly in the interests of justice take action to ensure that justice will be done if the allegations are eventually proved correct. In the present case, if it is true that plaintiff is a mere puppet of defendants 3 and 4 and, in addition to having no property herself, is put up for the vexatious purpose of nullifying the effect of the decree obtained by defendants 1 and 2 in the High Court, then it would be a complete miscarriage of justice if, on the failure of her suit, she were allowed to escape the burden of the defendant's costs.

(2.) On equitable grounds there might be a great deal to be said for the learned Judge's view; but what this Court has to consider is whether he had jurisdiction to demand security for costs on grounds not provided for in Order 25, Rule 1, Civil P.C. Learned Counsel for the opposite party relies upon Khajah Assenoollajoo v. Solomon ( 87) 14 Cal. 533 and Chainrai Valiram V/s. Sunday Times Ltd ( 32) 19 A.I.R. 1932 Sind. 33 which is the authority the learned Judge has followed. In the first mentioned case a learned Judge of the High Court at Calcutta observed: ...I take it that there can be no doubt...that this Court has power to require security for costs if it finds that the plaintiff is not the real litigant but that he is only a puppet in the hands of others.

(3.) Further on the learned Judge says: As I understand the English decisions, the Courts do not require security because the plaintiff is a pauper or because he is a mere trustee, but they do require security when they find that he is not the real litigant.