NAWAB BEHRAM JUNG Vs. HAJI SULTANALI SHUSTRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case it appears that a suit was filed on-line Original Side of the Court by the present appellant who was known at the time to be a resident in Hyderabad without immoveable property in British India. The suit was contested and occupied eight days in the hearing. The defendant, however, made no application for security for costs before or at the hearing of the suit in the Original Court.

(2.) Now that the appellant has filed an appeal and has deposited the prescribed amount according to the rules of this Court, viz., Rs. 500, as security for costs of the appeal, and within a fortnight of the date fixed for the hearing of the appeal, the respondent gives notice to the appellant to show cause why he should not deposit in Court Rs. 7,500, as security for both the costs of the appeal and the costs in the lower Court.

(3.) The contention on behalf of the respondent is that the case is governed by Order XLI, Rule 10, and that as the appellant is residing out of British India, the Court is bound to demand security not only for the costs of the appeal but also for the costs of the original suit.