When security for costs may be required from plaintiff
Full Text
(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 plaintiffs are, residing out of India and that such plaintiff does not possess or that no one of such plaintiffs possesses any sufficient immovable property within 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).
Plain English Summary
Vests the court with discretionary power at any stage to compel the plaintiff to furnish security for the defendant's past and future costs, making such an order mandatory where an NRI, foreign, or flight-risk plaintiff resides outside India without possessing sufficient unencumbered immovable property within the country.
Key Legal Elements
- Stage of Application: At any stage of the suit (suo motu or on defendant's application).
- Reasons in Writing Required: Judicial discretion must be supported by recorded grounds.
- Mandatory Proviso for Non-Residents: Compulsory where sole plaintiff or all plaintiffs reside outside India.
- Exclusion of Suit Property: Property in dispute cannot be counted as 'sufficient immovable property'.
- Flight-Risk Constructive Non-Residence (Sub-rule 2): Deemed out-of-India residence if debtor is likely to abscond abroad.
Practical Note
Strategic Defense Against Foreign & NRI Plaintiffs: 1. Invoking the Mandatory Proviso: If a plaintiff resides abroad (NRI, foreign national, or overseas corporate entity) and files a speculative suit in India, the defendant should immediately move an application under the Proviso to Order XXV Rule 1. The word 'shall' in the proviso makes it legally obligatory for the court to demand solvent security (such as a bank guarantee or deposit) if the plaintiff owns no other unencumbered property in India (Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj (2010) 8 SCC 1). 2. Suit Property Cannot Be Security: The statute expressly excludes the suit property itself ('other than the property in suit'). The plaintiff cannot defeat the application by claiming the disputed property is valuable.
हिंदी पाठ
(1) वाद के किसी भी प्रक्रम पर, न्यायालय या तो स्वप्रेरणा से अथवा किसी प्रतिवादी के आवेदन पर, अभिलिखित किए जाने वाले कारणों से, वादी को अपने द्वारा नियत समय के भीतर ऐसे समस्त खर्चों के संदाय के लिए प्रतिभूति (Security for costs) देने का आदेश दे सकेगा जो किसी प्रतिवादी द्वारा उपगत किए गए हैं या जिनके उपगत किए जाने की संभावना है: परंतु ऐसा आदेश उन सभी मामलों में दिया जाएगा जिनमें न्यायालय को यह प्रतीत होता है कि एकमात्र वादी (या जब एक से अधिक वादी हैं तब सभी वादी) भारत से बाहर निवास कर रहा है और ऐसे वादी के पास भारत में वादग्रस्त संपत्ति के अतिरिक्त कोई अन्य पर्याप्त स्थावर संपत्ति नहीं है।
(2) जो कोई ऐसी परिस्थितियों में भारत छोड़ता है जिनसे यह युक्तियुक्त अधिसंभाव्यता दर्शित होती है कि जब कभी उससे खर्चे देने की मांग की जाएगी तब वह उपलब्ध नहीं होगा, वह उप-नियम (1) के परंतुक के अर्थ में भारत से बाहर निवास करने वाला समझा जाएगा।