Lawzonline.com   Sign-in | Register
 
Home | Discussion Forum | Communities | Professional Search | Law Dictionary | Bare Acts | Law Schools | State Bare Acts | Free Judgement Search | Law quotes
Articles  |    Humor    |    Law Digest
 
 
Bare acts search

  Bookmark and Share
   
Bare acts > Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 > Order 25 Rule 2
 
   


 

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 there from.

(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, Dadra and Nagar haveli, Goa Daman and Diu.-
In Order XXV, after Rule 2, add the following as new rule:

“3. Power to implead and demand security from third person financing litigation - (1) Where any plaintiff has for the purpose of being financed in the suit transferred or agree to transfer any share or interest in the property in the suit to person who is not already a party to the Suit, the Court may order such person to be made 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 insult.

(2) If such person declines to be made a plaintiff, the Court may implead him as a defendant and may order him, within a 1me 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. (1.10.1983) and (1 .4.1987).

 

Karnataka (30.3.1967) an” Gujarat (17.8.1961).- Add the following as sub-rule (4) to Rule 2;

“(4) The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, shall apply to applications under this rule.”

Madhya Pradesh.- Same as that of Bombay except the word “a” inserted between the words “from” and “third” in the heading of the new rule. (16.9.1960).

 

 

 

 

A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z

 

Bookmark and Share

Quick Links          
           
Family Laws Insurance Laws Environmental law Tax Law FDI  
Company Law Telecommunication Law Labour Laws Central Rules RBI  
Business & Commercial Laws Consumer laws Corporate laws Criminal laws SEBI  
Intellectual Property law Media & Press laws Pharma & Medical laws Property law FEMA  
Debt Recovery Laws Amendments Professional law Banking Laws Legal Links  
           
           
 
 
  Partner Site
Adbeed.com India No 1 Business Directory and Classified Portal
Mybeed.com Your Online Library
 
 
 

 
   
 

 

 

Privacy PolicyDisclaimer | Link partners

Copyright @2010