RAYAPPA DHARNEPPA TIKANNAWAR Vs. DHARNEPPA DHARNEPPA TIKANNAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Civil Application No. 800 of 19S2 the petitioner obtained an order from the High Court directing the opponent to furnish security for costs to the extent of Rs. 1,470. In the ordinary course the First Class Subordinate Judge, Dharwar, was directed to take the security as the opponent was from that district. The order did not expressly state that security was to be furnished to the satisfaction of the lower Court. The learned Subordinate Judge accepted one Basappa Shidlingappa Hoskoti as surety on the report of the Mamlatdar of Hubli that Basappa was solvent to the extent of Rs. 1,470. The petitioner Rayappa had made an application to the Mamlatdar objecting to Basappa being accepted as a surety and asking that certain documentary evidence which he wanted to produce in support of his objection should be admitted. The learned Subordinate Judge made an order below this application that he did not see any reason to interfere with the considered opinion of the Mamlatdar and rejected the application.

(2.) The petitioner now prays that the Subordinate Judge should be directed to take proper and fresh security from the opponent or that the matter should be sent down to the Subordinate Judge for further inquiry as to the fitness of Basappa with a direction that the petitioner should be allowed to lead evidence.

(3.) It has been urged before us on behalf of the petitioner that this Court has power to review the order made by the Subordinate Judge accepting the security; and that the learned Subordinate Judge was acting in this ease not in the exercise of any power vested in him by statute but, only as a ministerial officer acting in the exercise of a power delegated to him by this Court.