AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Divatia, J.—This application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council has been placed before us at the instance of Mr. Jahagirdar, the learned advocate for the applicant. He says that the Registrar''s office has wrongly asked for separate security for costs for the two different appeals which have been ordered to be consolidated by this Court.
There are two different appellants in the two appeals against the same respondent on a common point. Mr. Jahagirdar contends that, as this Court has passed the order for consolidation, the order for the deposit of security for costs, i.e. Rs. 4,000, must be for one appeal and not for both.
Order XLV, Rule 4, simply empowers this Court to make an order for consolidation for pecuniary valuation, but it does not say. anything about taking security for costs in such a case. Rule 7 of the Privy Council Rules of 1920 is as foflows :-
Where there are two or more appeals arising out of the same matter, and the Court is of opinion that it would be for the convenience of the Lordships of the Judicial Committee and all parties concerned that the appeals should be consolidated, the Court may direct the appeals to be consolidated.
There is no rule either in the Privy Council Rules of 19210 or of 1925 under which there may be only one set of costs in the consolidated appeals. In the absence of any provisions in the CPC or in the Privy Council Rules it cannot be said that whenever there is an order of consolidation the order of security for costs should be only for one appeal.
In the present case the appellants are different although the point is common, and we do not think that an order of security for costs in one appeal only could be made. We are of opinion, therefore, that the Taxing Officer is right in demanding two separate securities for the two different appeals which have been consolidated.
There are no reported decisions on this point. The only one which throws some light on the point is Mussammat Bibi Nabi Zohra v. Rai Baijnath Goenka Bahadur (1919) 4 P. L.J. 198. There also the appellants were different although the respondent was the same.
The appellant will have a fortnight from today to pay the amount of security for the other appeal. Costs costs in appeal.