AI Overview...

Provision for Furnishing Security - The Civil Procedure Code (CPC) mandates that security must be furnished in accordance with prescribed formats, such as Form No. 6 in Appendix (F), especially for securing the due performance of a decree or order. An undertaking or affidavit alone does not substitute for formal security. Courts have clarified that an undertaking is not equivalent to furnishing security, and failure to comply can lead to attachment or other security measures. For example, the Supreme Court in Rajender Singh v. Saravanan emphasized the difference between a simple undertaking and formal security under CPC S. Rajasekar VS C. Sakthivel Raajhaa - Current Civil Cases.
Discretionary Nature of Security Orders - Courts possess discretion under Order XXV Rule 1(1) of CPC to direct a plaintiff to furnish security for costs, but such an order is not mandatory. The use of the word may indicates judicial discretion, and the proviso further clarifies that deposit of security is not obligatory in every case. The court assesses the resource availability and case specifics before directing security, as seen in various rulings Communication Components Antenna Inc. VS ACE Technologies Corp. - Delhi.
Procedure for Security in Appeals - For appeals, furnishing security for costs is governed by sections 756 and 757 of the CPC. Notices of security are valid even if the security amount isn't specified, and security can be provided via mortgage or deposit. The acceptance of security bonds before judicial approval can preclude the invocation of certain procedural provisions. The procedure aims to ensure the appellant's ability to satisfy potential costs without unnecessary technicalities RANASINGHE v. PIERIS.
Security as a Pre-condition for Granting Leave to Defend - Courts often require defendants to furnish security before being granted leave to defend, especially when there is a likelihood of recovering money shortly. Failure to furnish such security can result in the dismissal of defense or expedited judgments. The provisions of Order XXXVII Rule 3(6)(b) of CPC empower courts to impose security requirements, balancing the interests of both parties KAMAL GUPTA & ANR. Vs M/S SURGE INDUSTRIES LTD. & ORS. - Delhi.
Withdrawal of Deposits and Security - Permitting withdrawal of amounts deposited during stay of execution or arbitration proceedings is a recognized practice, provided the party deposits security for the amount. This practice doesn't modify the original stay order but ensures the judgment debtor's ability to access deposited funds while safeguarding the decree-holder's interests. Courts have upheld this approach, emphasizing the importance of security when withdrawing deposited amounts State Of West Bengal VS Dilip Kumar Saha - Calcutta.
Summary and Conclusion - Overall, the CPC establishes a clear framework that security must be furnished in prescribed forms, especially for enforcing decrees or securing costs. While courts have discretion in requiring security, the procedural requirements aim to balance fairness and enforceability. Non-compliance with security provisions can lead to attachment, dismissal, or other adverse orders. The procedural rules are flexible to accommodate case-specific circumstances, but the fundamental principle remains that security is a vital pre-condition in various stages of civil litigation, including appeals and defenses S. Rajasekar VS C. Sakthivel Raajhaa - Current Civil Cases, Communication Components Antenna Inc. VS ACE Technologies Corp. - Delhi, RANASINGHE v. PIERIS, INDDEL00000576407, State Of West Bengal VS Dilip Kumar Saha - Calcutta.

CPC Provisions for Furnishing Security: A Comprehensive Guide

In civil litigation under the Indian Civil Procedure Code (CPC), courts frequently require parties to furnish security to safeguard the interests of decree-holders or ensure compliance with orders. This mechanism prevents defendants from disposing of assets to evade execution of decrees. But what exactly is the provision in CPC for furnishing security? This blog post breaks down the key rules, procedures, exceptions, and practical insights, drawing from statutory provisions and judicial interpretations. Whether you're a litigant, lawyer, or business owner facing such orders, understanding these can help navigate proceedings effectively.

Note: This is general information based on CPC provisions and case law. It is not specific legal advice; consult a qualified lawyer for your case.

Overview of Key Provisions in CPC

The CPC outlines several provisions mandating or allowing courts to direct the furnishing of security. These are primarily aimed at securing property, costs, or decree execution.

1. Order XXXVIII Rule 5: Security for Production of Property

This is a cornerstone provision for attachment before judgment. The court may direct a defendant to furnish security for the production of property or show cause why such security should not be furnished. Failure to comply can lead to attachment of the specified property. Chinnakarupathal VS A. D. Sundarabai - Supreme Court Varghese VS Varghese - Kerala

For instance, courts require averments under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC to justify such directions, as seen in cases where plaintiffs seek attachment alleging defendants intend to dispose of assets. to direct the respondents to furnish security and, in the absence of furnishingsecurity, sought for an attachment before judgment. N.BALAJIVENKAT vs BHUVANESWARI UDAYAKUMAR - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 74613 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 74613

The procedure mandates issuing a notice to the defendant first. Non-compliance triggers conditional attachment under Order XXXVIII Rule 6. Mohammed Hariss VS Fathima - Kerala Chinnakarupathal VS A. D. Sundarabai - Supreme Court

2. Order XLI Rule 5: Stay of Decree on Furnishing Security

In appeals, this rule allows staying execution of a decree upon furnishing cash security. High Courts exercise inherent powers to prevent execution until security is provided. Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation VS Power Mech Projects Ltd. - Supreme Court

Recent interpretations clarify that under Order XLI Rule 1(3) CPC, furnishing security is not always mandatory for stays, but courts may direct it. However, the Opposite Parties without depositing the amount disputed or furnishingsecurity, have filed the appeal provision under Order XLI Rule 1(3) C.P.C.is not mandatory... GITA DEVI BAJORIA vs THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,ODISHA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION - Orissa

3. Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887

This requires sureties to furnish security, enforced via Section 145 CPC. It underscores compliance with CPC formats. Arti Dixit VS Sushil Kumar Mishra - Supreme Court

4. Order XXV Rule 1: Security for Costs

Courts may direct plaintiffs (even paupers) to furnish security for costs. The word may indicates discretion, assessed based on case specifics and resources. Bhim Singh VS State Of U. P. - 1973 0 Supreme(SC) 218 Courts possess discretion under Order XXV Rule 1(1) of CPC to direct a plaintiff to furnish security for costs, but such an order is not mandatory. Communication Components Antenna Inc. VS ACE Technologies Corp. - Delhi

Key Procedural Aspects and Enforcement

Conditional Attachment: Courts must issue notice before attachment. Skipping this voids the order. Mohammed Hariss VS Fathima - Kerala
Enforcement: Non-furnishing leads to property attachment. Plaintiffs must prove defendants' intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree. Perim Janardhana Rao VS M. Balaji - 2011 Supreme(Mad) 1691 - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 1691 According to Rule 5(1) of Order 38 of CPC, if the defendants are with an intention to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against them... Perim Janardhana Rao VS M. Balaji - Dishonour Of Cheque
Forms and Compliance: Security must follow prescribed formats like Form No. 6 in Appendix F. Undertakings or affidavits alone don't suffice. S. Rajasekar VS C. Sakthivel Raajhaa - Current Civil Cases

In summary suits under Order XXXVII Rule 3(6)(b), courts may require security as a precondition for leave to defend, dismissing defenses otherwise. KAMAL GUPTA & ANR. Vs M/S SURGE INDUSTRIES LTD. & ORS. - Delhi

Security in Appeals and Execution

For appeals, Order XLI Rule 10 mandates security bonds. 8 Furnishing of security bond under the provision of Rule 10 of order XLI of C.P.C.LALJI SINGH VS HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD - 2014 Supreme(All) 1656 - 2014 0 Supreme(All) 1656

In execution, especially eviction suits, security applies mainly to money decrees. the requirement of furnishingsecurity is applicable to money decrees and not to other decrees. Madhurendra Kumar Singh VS Asha Devi - 2022 Supreme(Pat) 830 - 2022 0 Supreme(Pat) 830 Madhurendra Kumar Singh VS Asha Devi - Current Civil Cases

Withdrawal of deposits during stays requires fresh security. State Of West Bengal VS Dilip Kumar Saha - Calcutta

Exceptions and Limitations

Government Exemption: Order XXVII Rule 8A exempts government from security in some cases, but courts can still direct deposits under Order XLI Rule 5. Although we are of the firm view that the archaic Rule 8-A of Order 27, CPC has no application... the same would only exempt the Government from furnishing security, whereas under Order 41, Rule 5, CPC, the Court has the power to direct for full or part deposit...Amravati Municipal Corporation VS Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner And Officer In Charge, Sub Regional Office, Akola - 2021 Supreme(Bom) 1683 - 2021 0 Supreme(Bom) 1683
Discretionary Relief: Time extensions for furnishing security may be granted under Section 148 CPC if no specific provision exists. ANJU @ ANJU BALA vs RAMPAL - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6636 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6636
Invalid Orders: Attachments without prima facie proof of bona fides or intent are challengeable. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. VS Shri Ramana Geavy Engineering P. Ltd. , Chennai - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 2490 - 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 2490

Practical Recommendations for Litigants

Always ensure procedural compliance, like notices under Order XXXVIII Rule 5.
Challenge invalid attachments citing procedural lapses.
For appeals, prepare security bonds promptly to avoid execution.
Verify exemptions, especially for government parties.
Use affidavits to demonstrate no intent to dispose assets, but furnish formal security when ordered.

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

The CPC's provisions for furnishing security—centered on Order XXXVIII Rule 5, Order XLI Rule 5, and others—balance plaintiff protection with defendant rights. Courts wield discretion but must adhere to procedures to avoid reversals. Non-compliance risks attachments or dismissals, while proper use ensures fair litigation.

Key Takeaways:- Security prevents asset dissipation before judgment.- Mandatory notice and proof of intent are crucial.- Discretionary in costs/appeals, but formal in attachments.- Exemptions limited; government not fully immune.

References: Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation VS Power Mech Projects Ltd. - Supreme Court Tomy Sebastian, S/o. Mani Devassya VS Mini Harikumar, W/o. Harikumar - Kerala Union of India VS Sharvan Kumar - Supreme Court Arti Dixit VS Sushil Kumar Mishra - Supreme Court Rajendran VS Shankar Sundaram - Supreme Court PAM DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE LTD. VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Supreme Court Kanpur Jal Sansthan VS Bapu Construction - Supreme Court Sheeba C. Thomas VS Rosamma Thomas - Kerala Chinnakarupathal VS A. D. Sundarabai - Supreme Court Mohammed Hariss VS Fathima - Kerala Bhim Singh VS State Of U. P. - 1973 0 Supreme(SC) 218 Shew Bux Mohata VS Tulsimanjari Dasi - Supreme Court State Bank of India VS Soya Udyog Ltd. - Supreme Court N.BALAJIVENKAT vs BHUVANESWARI UDAYAKUMAR - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 74613 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 74613 ANJU @ ANJU BALA vs RAMPAL - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6636 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6636 Madhurendra Kumar Singh VS Asha Devi - 2022 Supreme(Pat) 830 - 2022 0 Supreme(Pat) 830 Madhurendra Kumar Singh VS Asha Devi - Current Civil Cases GITA DEVI BAJORIA vs THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,ODISHA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION - Orissa Amravati Municipal Corporation VS Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner And Officer In Charge, Sub Regional Office, Akola - 2021 Supreme(Bom) 1683 - 2021 0 Supreme(Bom) 1683 Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. VS Shri Ramana Geavy Engineering P. Ltd. , Chennai - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 2490 - 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 2490 LALJI SINGH VS HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD - 2014 Supreme(All) 1656 - 2014 0 Supreme(All) 1656 Perim Janardhana Rao VS M. Balaji - 2011 Supreme(Mad) 1691 - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 1691 Perim Janardhana Rao VS M. Balaji - Dishonour Of Cheque S. Rajasekar VS C. Sakthivel Raajhaa - Current Civil Cases Communication Components Antenna Inc. VS ACE Technologies Corp. - Delhi RANASINGHE v. PIERIS KAMAL GUPTA & ANR. Vs M/S SURGE INDUSTRIES LTD. & ORS. - Delhi State Of West Bengal VS Dilip Kumar Saha - Calcutta

Stay informed on CPC updates to strengthen your legal strategy.

#CPCSecurity #FurnishingSecurity #CivilLawIndia

N.BALAJIVENKAT vs BHUVANESWARI UDAYAKUMAR - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 74613

to direct the respondents to furnish security and, in the absence of furnishing security, sought for an attachment before judgment. ... The main contention put forth by the appellant’s counsel is that in spite of the averment as contemplated under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC filed before the Court, learned Single Judge has arrived at an incorrect conclusion. Therefore, the order impugned is to be set aside. ... for the appell....

ANJU @ ANJU BALA vs RAMPAL - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6636

On 08.03.2024, defendant No. 1 filed one of the instant IA No. 5760/2024, invoking Section 151 of CPC, seeking condonation of delay of 104 days in furnishing the security. ... In context of Order VI Rule 18 of CPC, the Court observed that Section 148 of CPC, being a residuary provision, permits enlargement of time where no specific provision exists, but is ordinaril....

Madhurendra Kumar Singh VS Asha Devi - 2022 Supreme(Pat) 830

The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that deposit of furnishing of security is mandatory. 9. ... specifically on the execution of the decree in eviction suit in which this Court did not require furnishing of the security in cases of eviction suit. ... Kar that the requirement of furnishing security is applicable to money decrees and not to other decrees. There is nothing....

Madhurendra Kumar Singh VS Asha Devi

specifically on the execution of the decree in eviction suit in which this Court did not require furnishing of the security in cases of eviction suit. ... Kar that the requirement of furnishing security is applicable to money decrees and not to other decrees. There is nothing in sub-rule (3) to support such a plea. ... The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that deposit of furnishing of #HL....

KAMAL GUPTA & ANR. Vs M/S SURGE INDUSTRIES LTD. & ORS. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5027

furnishing of the security as a pre-condition to grant of leave to defend. ... There are chances of some money being recovered by the Defendants in the near future and therefore, an extension of six months be granted for furnishing the security to the tune of Rs. 2 crores in the interest of justice. ... Order XXXVII Rule 3(6)(b) of CPC clearly provides that if the Defendant is permitted to defend as to th....

State Of West Bengal VS Dilip Kumar Saha - 2021 Supreme(Cal) 309

All that is being done is that in view of a long settled practice, the applicant is being permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the respondent in compliance with the stay order subject to the applicant furnishing security as directed by the court. ... The Division Bench held that permitting withdrawal of the amount does not tantamount to modifying the order of stay but because of the long-standing practice such orders have passed subject to #HL_START....

GITA DEVI BAJORIA vs THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,ODISHA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION

However, the Opposite Parties without depositing the amount disputed or furnishing security, have filed the appeal provision under Order XLI Rule 1(3) C.P.C.is not mandatory, directed stay execution of the impugned decree subject to noticing some of the aforementioned decisions as also the legislative history of the said provision

Amravati Municipal Corporation VS Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner And Officer In Charge, Sub Regional Office, Akola - 2021 Supreme(Bom) 1683

Although we are of the firm view that the archaic Rule 8-A of Order 27, CPC has no application or reference in the present times, we may only add that even if it is assumed that the provisions of Order 27, Rule 8-A, CPC are to be applied, the same would only exempt the Government from furnishing security, whereas under Order 41, Rule 5, CPC, the Court has the power to direct for full or part deposit and/or to furnish security of the decretal amount. Rule 8-A only provides exe....

Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. VS Shri Ramana Geavy Engineering P. Ltd. , Chennai - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 2490

According to the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, to avail the benefit under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC, the applicant must show prima facie that its claim is bona fide and valid and also satisfy the Court that the respondents are about to remove or dispose of the whole or part of the property, with the intention of obstructing or delaying the execution of any award that may be passed against them. Secondly, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that the present applic....

LALJI SINGH VS HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD - 2014 Supreme(All) 1656

8 Furnishing of security bond under the provision of Rule 10 of order XLI of C.P.C. 9 Compliance of Court orders, in the exercise of its original, ordinary or extra ordinary jurisdiction.

Perim Janardhana Rao VS M. Balaji - 2011 Supreme(Mad) 1691

As regards this case, the plaintiff had furnished in his affidavit that the defendants are selling the property in order to evade payment of the decree amount likely to be passed in this case. According to Rule 5(1) of Order 38 of CPC, if the defendants are with an intention to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against them or about to dispose the whole or any part of his property or is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the local limits o....

Perim Janardhana Rao VS M. Balaji

It is also fairly admitted that the Power Agents of the defendants are doing all the mischievous and it has to be verified by the defendants as to whether all the properties sold are part of the properties mentioned in the schedule of Judges Summons and thereafter only the remaining schedule of property unencumbered may be furnished to the Court. According to Rule 5(1) of Order 38 of CPC, if the defendants are with an intention to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passe....