1. When security for costs may be required from plaintiff.- (1) At any stage of a suit, the court may, either of its own motion or on the application of any defendant, order the plaintiff, for reasons to be recorded, to give within the time fixed by it security for the payment of all costs incurred and likely to be incurred by any defendant:
Provided that such an order shall be made in all cases in which it appears to the court that a sole plaintiff is, or (when there are more plaintiffs than one) that all the plaintiffs are residing out of India and that such plaintiff does not possess or that no one of such plaintiffs possesses any sufficient immovable property within India other than the property in suit.
(2) Whoever leaves India under such circumstances as to afford reasonable probability that he will not be forthcoming whenever he may be called upon to pay costs shall be deemed to be residing out of India within the meaning of the proviso to sub-rule (1).
HIGH COURT AMENDMENTS
Allahabad.- In Order XXI, for the existing Rule 1, the following rule shall be substituted:
“1. When security for Costs may be required from plaintiff.— (1) At any stage of the suit, the Court may, either of its own motion or on the application of any defendant, order the plaintiff for reasons to be recorded to give within the time fixed by it, security for the payment of all Costs incurred and likely to be incurred by any defendant:
Provided that such an order shall be made in all cases in which it appears to the Court that a sole plaintiff is, or (when there are more plaintiffs than one) that all the plaintiffs are, residing outside the State and that such plaintiff does not possess or that no one of such plaintiffs possesses any sufficient immovable property within the State other than the property in suit or that the plaintiff is being financed by another person.
(2) Whoever leaves that State under such circumstances as to afford reasonable probability that he will not be forthcoming whenever he may be called upon to pay costs shall be deemed to be residing outside the State within the meaning of the proviso to sub-rule (1).” (5.2.1983).
Andhra and Madras.- Insert sub-rule (4) —
“(4) In all cases in which an element of champerty or maintenance is proved the Court may on the application of the defendant demand security for the estimated amount of the defendant’s costs or such proportion thereof, as from time to time during the progress of the suit the Court may think just.” (ROC 3019 of 1926).
Madhya Pradesh.- At the end of proviso insert” or that any plaintiff is being financed by a person not a party to the suit.” (16.9.1960).
Orissa.- (i) Substitute sub-rule (3) by the following:
“(3) On the application of a defendant in any suit the Court may at any stage of the suit make a like order if it is satisfied that the plaintiff does not possess any sufficient immovable property within the Union of India.”
(ii) Insert the following as sub-rule (4):
“(4) On being satisfied that there is an element of champerty or maintenance, the Court may on the application of the defendant order a plaintiff to furnish security for the entire estimated amount of the defendant’s costs or a portion thereof from time to time as the Court may consider just and proper.”(7.5.1954).
Can some one challenge this and say that security is not necessary in this case?
If so under what CPC?
Thanks
Abhishek
(9873661140
