Understanding the Provisions for Increasing Inadequate Security under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

The Indian legal system is a complex yet organized structure which provides an effective resolution of disputes. The Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) 1908 is one crucial component of this system, providing the procedural law needed to handle civil matters. One key provision of the CPC that requires a clear understanding pertains to security and the potentialities for its increase when deemed inadequate. The expert team at SimranLaw walks you through this intricate topic.

Overview of Section 93 and Order 25 Rule 1 & 2

Under the CPC, provisions related to security are primarily found within Section 93 and Order 25 Rule 1 & 2. These deal respectively with securing costs for delays in proceedings and securing costs for appearances from outside the jurisdiction.

• Section 93: This section essentially ensures that the costs associated with any delays in court proceedings are adequately secured. If a court feels that the security provided is insufficient, it has the ability to increase the required security.

• Order 25:

  1. Rule 1: This rule concerns plaintiffs residing outside India or plaintiffs about to leave the country. The court can order such individuals to provide security for both proceedings and execution expenses.
  2. Rule 2: This rule applies to non-resident defendants and allows courts to require them to provide respective security. Inadequate security in either case can be increased by the court.

Judicial Interpretations

SimranLaw experts draw upon relevant case laws and judgments to provide a comprehensive understanding of these provisions.

1. Prem Chand Jain vs The Ganges Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1981 SC 676: In this landmark judgement, the Supreme Court held that while implementing the provisions of Order 25 Rule 1, the courts cannot insist on security if there’s no reason to believe that the plaintiff is attempting to hinder/delay the proceedings.

2. Ameer Trading Corporation Ltd. vs Shree Cement Ltd., AIR 2004 SC 355: The Supreme Court in this case clarified that the power to require security under Order 25 Rule 1 is the court’s discretion. This discretion, however, needs to be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily.

3. Bishundeo Narain vs Seogeni Rai, (1951) ILR 1 Cal 447: This case sets important precedents for section 93. The court ruled that the section empowers a judge to ask for “further security” or increase an existing security if it is deemed inadequate.

4. SAK Abdul Kader vs SAK Maula Bukhsh, AIR 1964 Mad 130: The Madras High Court clarified that under Section 93, a court cannot demand security from the plaintiff if they’re not causing an undue delay in the proceedings.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the provisions for increasing inadequate security under CPC, 1908, ensure a fair and just dealing of civil cases. It prevents abuse of process, ensures judicial efficiency and safeguards the rights of both plaintiffs and defendants. It is, however, crucial to understand that these provisions are applied with discretion and must not infringe on parties’ rights.

To achieve a complete and nuanced understanding of these provisions, we strongly recommend consulting with experienced legal professionals. SimranLaw, with our team of expert lawyers, is here to help you navigate these legal complexities.