P. B. MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application for security for costs against pltf. Ratanbala Dasi in the suit.

( 2 ) THERE are two pltfs. in this suit. One is Sri Sri Mahadeb Jiew, a deity who is suing through Ratanbala as his trustee or as shebait. The other pltf. is Ratanbala Dasi herself.

( 3 ) MR. R. Goho, who argued in support of this application, has put forward two main grounds: (1) Pltf. Ratanbala is a woman and therefore under Order 25 Rule 1 (3) I have the jurisdiction to order security for costs against the woman pltf. , if I am otherwise satisfied. (2) Pltf. Ratanbala is merely a puppet in this suit and she is not the real litigant and therefore I should direct security for costs as against her. This power, Mr. Goho argues, is within the inherent powers and jurisdiction of this Court.

( 4 ) I will first deal with the ground put forward by Mr. Goho on the basis of Order 25 Rule 1, Civil P. C. In my opinion, before an order can be made under this provision of the Code, the applicant has to satisfy four tests. The first is that it must be a suit for money. I have carefully analysed the plaint in this suit and I find that there is no prayer or claim in this suit for any money whatsoever. It is a suit to set aside a consent decree and for certain declarations and injunction. Mr. Goho submits that in the last analysis these suits are really for money but I am not prepared to accept so commercial a view of suits. I have no hesitation in holding that the present suit before me is not a suit for money at all. It is quite true that when a suit is perhaps not exclusively for money but will result in a decree for money then such a suit may come within the rule on the basis of the decision in 'sonabai v. Tribhowandas', (32 Bom 602 ). But I have no hesitation in holding that the main relief, at any rate, must be for money before a suit can come within the meaning of this provision. In my opinion, the applicant in this case has failed to pass this test.

( 5 ) THE second test is that the woman pltf. should be the sole pltf. within the meaning of this rule. I find that the deity is a co-pltf. in this case. It is true that pltf. Ratanbala is the next friend of the deity but she is also a she-bait and a trustee under the terms of the Will of the Testatrix. If she cannot act as a shebait or the next friend, then she will be removed and somebody else will have to be appointed as next friend to carry on the suit on behalf of the pltf. deity. It is not the same thing as saying that it is one and the same pltf. and that is the woman pltf. Ratanbala. The deity is a separate pltf. in this suit.

( 6 ) THIS point did arise for decision in a Calcutta case which was decided by Panckridge, J. There it was held that where only one of several pltfs. is a woman, Order 25, Rule 1 (3) has no application. The case is reported as 'victor Day v. Nissim Aaron (Judah)', (63 Cal 809 ). There also, there were two plfs. , one a minor and the other his mother. Panckridge, J. at p. 811 of the report observes:"in my opinion, Order XXV Imposes an exceptional disability upon pltfs. and therefore must be strictly construed. It is not to be applied if the circumstances do not clearly come within its purview. I do not think that a suit in which there is a male pltf. can properly be described a suit in which the pltf. is a woman. "

( 7 ) THE learned Judge proceeds to give further reasons on the basis of the consequence that would follow if this contention was upheld. On the same page he further observes:"under Rule 2 (1), if the security is not furnished within the time fixed, the Court shall make an order dismissing the suit, unless the pltf. or pltfs. are permitted to withdraw therefrom. The language on the face of it applies to the suit as a whole and the form of the summons bears this out because it asks that an order for security be made against both the pltfs. In his argument, however, the deft's counsel has conceded that no order can be made as against

Click Here to Read the rest of this document