SWARNA RAJAMMA Vs. THOTA VENKIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner obtained an order for stay in the High Court on 3 September, 1948, which was made absolute on her furnishing security in. Rs. 3,000 to the satisfaction of the Sub- Court, Bapatla, within six weeks from, that date and also depositing some costs and mesne profits within the same period-The petitioner tendered a draft security bond on 17th. September, 1948. Her application was returned with some objections. She re-presented it on 4 October,. 1948. It was then posted on 7 October, 1948, to 18 October, 1948 for objections. On that date the Subordinate Judge held that the time allowed by the High Court order had expired on 15 October, 1948 and dismissed, the petitioner's application; and also disallowed time for filing objections to the draft security bond. This point has already been considered and decided by Yahya Ali, J., in Ganapathi Naicker V/s. Govindarajulu Naidu . He held following the view taken by Happell J. in Rangaswami Nadar V/s. Pichaimani Nadar that it was sufficient compliance with, such an order if the security had been tendered in time and that it was not necessary that the testing of the security itself and the filing of the fair security bond should, be made within the time prescribed.

(2.) Mr. Alladi Kuppuswami has relied on the decision of Ramesam, J. in Balakrishna Aiyar v. Pichamuthu Pilla (1921) 15 L.W.186 followed by King, J., in Chettiyalan kanakurup V/s. Raman Nair . That was a decision under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act where a defendant against whom an ex parte decree was passed on 26th. January, 1920, filed a draft security bond on 6 February, 1920, which was ultimately accepted on 9 March, 1920, and he only filed his fair bond on the 1 April, 1920. It was held that the filing of the draft bond was not sufficient compliance with the requirements of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts; Act. King, J., following this decision referred to the decision of Happell, J, in. Rangaswami Nadar V/s. Pichaimani Nadar , but felt that the decision of Ramesam, J., was logically correct because in Section 17 of the Act an alternative was given, namely, deposit or security which had to be complied within 30 days, and the: statute contemplated something effectually being done within this period. I prefer-in cases of this kind to follow the view taken by Happell, J., and Yahya Ali, J. that when stay is ordered by an appellate Court on security being furnished within, a particular period what the Court contemplated was the tender of security within that time. It would be manifestly inequitable if for no fault of his, a petitioner obtaining such stay is penalised by time being taken for objections to a draft security bond and then finding himself in the position of not being able to file a fair security bond within the time prescribed.

(3.) Mr. Alladi Kuppuswami has urged that the correct procedure contemplated, in the decisions under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act which, should be followed in these cases also is that a fair security bond should be filed, in the first instance; but at the same time he concedes that it is always open to. the other side to object to the sufficiency of security, I am unable to see any difference, so far as finality is concerned, between a draft security bond and a fair security bond, if the latter can be objected to for want of sufficiency or on any other grounds. This is a type of case of common occurrence, in which I think it is sufficient if the security is tendered with a draft security bond within the time prescribed by the Court. This does not mean that in the event of the security tendered being found insufficient it is open to the petitioner to file fresh security. He must take his stand on the security that he furnishes, and if this is found to be insufficient, then his petition for stay fails. It is up to him to see that sufficient and acceptable security is tendered by him in the first instance