Porna Koer and Another vs Chunni Lal and Another

We are of opinion that this case must go back for the District Judge to deal with it on the merits. The mere fact that a previous grant was subject to a condition which the applicants were unable to comply with, is no ground for refusing a second application. The learned Judge should consider this application on the merits, and unless he is of opinion that it is not made bona fide, he should accept the security offered, or be satisfied with a modest security and grant the application. It should be borne in mind that the object of the application is to enable a debt due to the deceased''s estate to be collected by the persons beneficially entitled to it, and it may very well be that persons who are perfectly honest, and who are applying bona fide, are not able to file the security which the Court considers appropriate. It is difficult to see why any but a purely nominal security is required here at, all. It is not as though there were substantial assets, and the applicant were a person whom it was desirable to put upon terms against the risk of his wasting the assets, or defeating the claims of creditors. The applicants are the persons beneficially entitled to the estate. It is only against loss to themselves that they are being required to give security. Practically the whole assets consist of the debt which they are seeking to recover, and to recover which they require the grant. Unless they can be put in a position to recover the debt there will be nothing to waste, and the debtor will escape payment. It is the business of the Court to endeavour as far as possible to assist such persons rather than to put obstacles in their way. The appeal is allowed and the case remanded to the District Judge to be disposed of on the merits.