SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1955 Supreme(AP) 304

BHIMASANKARAM, K.SUBBA RAO, P.SATYANARAYANA RAJU
THOTA PITCHAIAH – Appellant
Versus
SURYANARAYANACHARYULU – Respondent


( 1 ) THE Order of Reference was delivered by the Hon ble The Chief Justice. This is an application for permitting the petitioners to furnish immoveable property security for the costs of the respondents in the place of cash security and to extend the time for complying with Order 45 Rule 7 C. P. C. The petitioners, who lost the appeal in the Madras High Court, applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. This Court granted leave by order dated 17-3-1955. The petitioners did not furnish security in cash as provided for by Order 45 Rule 7 C. P. C. Having made default, they have filed the present application for permitting them to give security in immoveable property in the place of security in cash. Learned Counsel for the respondents contends that this Court has no power to permit the petitioners to do so as under the proviso to Rule 7 of Order 45, the petitioners should have asked for that relief at the time when the certificate was granted. The said proviso reads :" Provided that the court at the time of granting the certificate may, after hearing any opposite party who appears, order on the ground of special hardship that some other form of security may be furnished"

( 2 ) L













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top