(1.) The petitioner filed a suit claiming a declaration that she was j the trustee of certain properties and that a series of alienations of these properties in favour of the various defendants were not binding on the trust. As she lived outside British India and she had no properties within British India she was at the instance of various defendants required to furnish security for costs of the suit. She failed to furnish the security within the time required and the suit was dismissed on 21st December, 1943. After this order she filed I.A. No. 25 of 1944, a petition to restore to file the suit dismissed for failure to furnish security. She also filed another application praying the Court to receive a draft security bond. With the latter, we are not now concerned. I.A. No. 25 of 1944 was dismissed and it is against the dismissal of that application that C. M. A. No. 434 of 1945 was filed.
(2.) In this appeal an application C. M. P. No. 2918 of 1946 was preferred by respondents 1 to 3 praying the Court to direct the appellant to furnish security for the costs of those respondents in the appeal. That application was ordered on 4th November, 1946, and the appellant was given six weeks time to furnish security to the satisfaction of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore. Security has not been furnished and the matter now comes up for orders.
(3.) The appellant contends that the effect of her failure to furnish security for the costs of these three respondents should be that the appeal will stand dismissed only as against these respondents. For the other respondents, it is, however, contended that the effect of the appellant's default should be that the appeal would be dismissed in toto. It is common ground that the provisions of Order 41, Rule 20 of the Civil P. C. are mandatory and the only question is what is the precise effect of this rule in cases where there are numerous respondents and security for costs has been ordered at the instance of only some of those respondents.