1950 (3) TMI 33 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the petitioners were required to furnish security for costs of the suit?
2. Can security for costs be awarded based on the suit not being bona fide?
3. Whether Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code can be invoked for directing security for costs?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The revision petition challenged the Subordinate Judge's order directing the petitioners to provide security for the costs of the suit. The petitioners, claiming to be illegitimate sons of Karuppan Chettiar, filed a suit for partition of his properties. The respondents contended that a partition deed existed, and the suit was not bona fide. The Subordinate Judge, relying on the respondents' contentions, directed the petitioners to furnish security for costs incurred and likely to be incurred by the respondents.

Issue 2:
The Subordinate Judge based his decision on the suit not being bona fide due to the petitioners' failure to address the partition deed in the pleadings. However, the High Court noted that determining the bona fides of the suit prematurely, before hearing the evidence, was improper. The Court emphasized that security for costs should be exceptional and not the norm, requiring established principles, not merely the initial impression of the suit's bona fides.

Issue 3:
The petitioners argued that security for costs should only be awarded under Order 25, Rule 1, and not on other grounds like the suit's bona fides. They contended that Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code should not be invoked for directing security for costs. The High Court concurred, stating that Section 151 should not be used when specific provisions like Order 25, Rule 1 exist. The Court highlighted that exceptional circumstances, such as champerty or maintenance, must be present to warrant security for costs, which was not the case here.

In conclusion, the High Court found the Subordinate Judge's order erroneous, setting it aside and allowing the revision petition with costs. The Court emphasized that security for costs should be exceptional, based on established principles, and not solely on the perceived lack of bona fides in a suit.