Skip to main content

Order 25 CPC - Code of Civil Procedure - SECURITY FOR COSTS

 Order 25 CPC Description

1[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 plaintiff are, residing out of India and that such plaintiff does not possess or that no one of such plaintiffs possesses any sufficient immovable property with 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).]


1. Subs. by Act 66 of 1956, sec. 14 for rule 1 (w.e.f. 1-1-1957).


HIGH COURT AMENDMENTS


Allahabad.-In Order XXV, for rule 1, substitute the following rule, namely:-


"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 reason 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 plaintiffs does not possess or that 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)." (w.e.f. 5-2-1983)


Madhya Pradesh.-In Order XXV, in rule (1), in proviso, at the end, insert the words "or that any plaintiff is being financed by a person not a party to the suit", (w.e.f. 16-9-1960)


2. Effect of failure to furnish security


(1) In the event of such security not being furnished within the time fixed, the Court shall make an Order dismissing the suit unless the plaintiff or plaintiffs are permitted to withdraw therefrom.


(2) Where a suit is dismissed under this rule, the plaintiff may apply for an Order to set the dismissal aside and, if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from furnishing the security within the time allowed, the Court shall set aside the dismissal upon such terms as to security, costs or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit.


(3) The dismissal shall not be set aside unless notice of such application has been served on the defendant.


HIGH COURT AMENDMENTS


Bombay.-In Order XXV, after rule 2, insert the following rule, namely:-


"3. Power to implead and demand security from third person financing litigation.-fl) Where any plaintiff has for the purpose of being financed in the suit transferred or agreed to transfer any share or interest in the property in the suit to a person who is not already a party to the suit, the Court may Order such person to be made a plaintiff to the suit if he consents, and may either of its own motion or on the application of any defendant Order such person, within a time to be fixed by it to give security for the payment of all costs incurred and likely to be incurred by any defendant. In the event of such security not being furnished within the time fixed, the Court may make an Order dismissing the suit so far as his right to, or interest in the property in suit is concerned, or declaring that he shall be debarred from claiming any right to or interest in the property in suit.


(2) If such person declines to be made a plaintiff, the Court may implead him as a defendant and may Order him, within a time to be fixed by it, to give security for the payment of all costs incurred and likely to be incurred by any other defendant. In the event of such security not being furnished within the time fixed, the Court may make an Order declaring that he shall be debarred from claiming any right to or interest in the property in suit.


(3) Any plaintiff or defendant against whom an Order is made under this rule may apply to have it set aside and the provisions of sub-rules (2) and (3) of rule 2 shall apply mutatis mutandis to such application." (w.e.f. 1-10-1983)


Gujarat.-Same as in Bombay,


Karnataka.-In Order XXV, in rule 2, after sub-rule (3) insert the following sub-rule, namely:-


"(4) The provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, shall apply to applications under this rule." (w.e.f. 30-3-1967)


Madhya Pradesh.-In Order XXV, for rule 3, substitute the following rule, namely:-


"3. Power to implead and demand security from a third person financing litigation.- (1) Where any plaintiff has, for the purpose of being financed in the suit, transferred or agreed to transfer any share or interest in the property in suit, to a person who is not already a party to the suit, the Court may Order such person to be made a plaintiff to the suit, if he consents and may either of its own motion or on the application of any defendant Order such person, within a time to be fixed by it, to give security for the payment of all costs incurred and likely to be incurred by any defendant. In the event of such security not being furnished within the time fixed, the Court may make an Order dismissing the suit so far as his right to, or interest in the property in suit is concerned or declaring that he shall be debarred from claiming any right to, or interest in the property in suit.


(2) If such person declines to be made a plaintiff the Court may implead him as a defendant and may Order him, within a time to be fixed by it, to give security for the payment of all costs incurred and likely to be incurred by any other defendant. In the event of such security not being furnished within the time fixed the Court may make an Order declaring that he shall be debarred from claiming any right to, or interest in, the property in suit.


(3) Any plaintiff or defendant against whom an Order is made under this rule may apply to have it set aside and the provisions of sub-rules (2) and (3) of rule 2 shall apply mutatis mutandis to such application." (w.e.f. 16-9-1960)


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more