HEAKNE S . P J . — S en a n a ya k e v. d e C roos.

189

1939 P r e s e n t : H e a r n e S .P.J. a n d W ije y e w a r d e n e J.

SENANAYAKE e t al. v . D E CROOS e t al.

63— D . C. (I n ty .) N e g o m b o 10,531.

S e c u r i t y j a r c o s ts — O r d e r m a d e o n g r o u n d o f p l a i n t i f f ’s p o v e r t y — S e l e c t i o n o f
f o r u m t o s u i t p l a i n t i f f ’s c o n v e n i e n c e — N o t t o h a r a s s d e f e n d a n t o r p r e v e n t
recovery —Civil P r o c e d u r e C o d e , s. 416 ( C a p . 8 6 ).
o f co sts

The poverty of the plaintiff is not a good ground for ordering him to
deposit security for the payment of defendant’s costs.
The selection^f a particular forum by the plaintiff would be a good
ground for making such an order if it was done in order to harass the
defendant or to render the recovery of costs difficult.
Scott v . M o h a m a d u (18 N . L . R . 5 3 ) followed.
C u r. a d v . v u lt.
^ P P E A L fro m an o rd e r o f the D istric t J u d g e o f N e g o m b o .

F irs t petitio n er in person.

C roos D a B rera (w it h h im C. T. O le g a s e g e r a m ), fo r d e fe n d a n ts,
respondents.

A u g u s t 30, 1939. H earn e S .P.J.—

T h e first, second, th ird , a n d fo u rth plain tiffs, w h o a re h e re th e ap p e lla n ts,
filed an action in th e D istric t C o u rt o f N e g o m b o c la im in g d e c la ra tio n o f
title, eje c tm e n t and dam ages in re sp e c t of c e rta in la n d e d p ro p e rty
situated w ith in th e ju risd ic tio n o f th at C o u rt.
- ' (1934) 36 K . L . R . 108. 1 (1908) 11 -V. R . 302.
17-
 190 HEARNE S .P .J .— S enanayake v. de Croos.

O n an ap p lication b e in g m a d e b y the defen dan ts u n d e r section 416,

C i v i l P ro c e d u re C ode, th e p lain tiffs w ere o rd e re d to deposit security .
f o r costs on th e g ro u n d that th ey liv e d outside the ju risd ic tio n o f the
C ourt. A g a in s t this o rd e r the plain tiffs h a v e a p p e a le d an d perm ission
h a s b e e n g iv e n to them b y this C o u rt to prosecute th eir ap p e a l as p a u p e r
appellants. The Judge fo u n d that the p lain tiffs w e r e w ith o u t m eans,
that the fo u rth p la in tiff liv e d outside the jurisdiction o f the C o u rt an d
th at the first to th ird p lain tiffs h a d m o v e d to N e g o m b o “ fo r the p urpose
o f a v o id in g security in this action o r on account o f the convenience o f
residence in N e g o m b o fo r the p u rp o se o f this case ” .
Section 416 is g e n e ra l in its term s an d it is d e sira b le that in a p p ly in g it,
the C o u rt sh o u ld proceed in the exercise o f its discretion on definite
principles. L itig a n ts w o u ld oth e rw ise be en cou raged to m ake a p p li­
cations of this n a tu re in th e g re a t m a jo rity o f cases.
I n m a k in g h is o rd e r the J u d g e ap p e a rs to h a v e b e e n influenced b y the
p o v e rty o f the p lain tiffs w h ic h h e stresses. B u t the p o v e rty o f a p lain tiff
is a m isfortun e, not a f a u l t ; a n d he w i l l not b e com pelled to g iv e security
m e re ly b ecause h e is a pau per. Th at, at an y rate, is a prin c ip le on w h ic h
C o u rts in E n g la n d act. Cornell v . T a y l o r 1; C o o k v. W h e llO c k 3; R h o d es v.
D aw son \
T h e re le v a n t section has b een ju d ic ia lly in terp reted b y this C o urt. It
h as b e e n h e ld that an o rd e r fo r security sh ould not b e m ade as a m atter
o f course a n d that one o f the considerations to w h ic h the C o u rt should
d ire c t its attention is w h e th e r the p lain tiff h a s selected a p a rtic u la r fo ru m
in o rd e r to h arass the d e fe n d a n t or to re n d e r the re c o v e ry o f costs b y
h im 'd iffic u lt (S c o tt v . M o h a m a d u '). In the p resen t case the plain t w a s
filed in the D istric t C o u rt o f N e g o m b o b ecause the su b je c t-m a tte r in
d isp u te is situated w ith in the ju risd ic tio n o f the C o u rt, an d accordin g to
the fin din g o f the J u d g e th ree o f the fo u r plain tiffs w h o n o rm a lly liv e
outside the ju risd ic tio n o f the C o u rt took u p residence w ith in its ju ris ­
diction. T h e se a r e not go o d reason s f o r an o rd e r re q u irin g security to b e
g iv e n .
A n o th e r m atter w h ic h sh ould b e m ost c a re fu lly considered is w h e th e r
the pro visio n s of section 416 have be e n o p p re ssiv e ly in v o k ed by a
defen dan t. To this the Judge does not appear to have directed his
attention at all.
I am satisfied the J u d g e has w r o n g ly exercised his discretion an d that
the o rd e r h e h as m ad e cannot stand.
O b je c tio n w a s taken b y C o u n sel fo r the respondents that as o n ly one o f
the a p p e lla n ts a p p e a re d b e fo re the C o u rt, that as the petition o f a ppeal
w a s sig n e d b y the a p p ellan ts b u t w a s not taken d o w n b y the S e c re ta ry o f
th e C o u rt in term s o f section 755 o f the C iv il P ro c e d u re Code, a n d as
ap p lication h a d n ot b e e n m a d e fo r typ ed copies w ith in tw e n ty days, the
appeal, sh o u ld be re je c te d w it h costs. We in tim ated that the m atter
a p p e a re d to b e o n e w h ic h w o u ld a p p ro p ria te ly b e d e a lt w ith in revision,
an a lth o u g h C o u n se l fo r the respondents stated he d id not ask that
n o tice b e g iv e n to h im , h e p ressed that the a p p e a l sh ould b e dism issed
w it h th e rig h t re s e rv e d to the a p p e lla n ts to m o v e in revisio n if so advised.
» 31 Ch. D. 34. 3 16 Q- B - D - 548-
S 24 Q. B . n . C5S. 4 u s 14) IS. N . L . R . S3.
 DE K K E T S E R J .— de Silva v. Francinaham ine. 191

T h a t is th e te n o r o f th e o r d e r th at h a s u s u a lly b e e n m a d e b y th is C o u rt
in cases w h e r e th e a p p e lla n t 'is n o t a p a u p e r. I n th e circu m stan ces o f
th is case, h o w e v e r, I fe e l th at it w o u ld b e b o th a p p ro p ria te a n d ju s t to
m a k e a n o r d e r in re v isio n a t once settin g aside th e o r d e r o f th e D istric t
Judge. The case w ill be re tu rn e d to th e lo w e r C o u rt fo r fu r t h e r
p ro c e e d in g s to b e tak en u p in d u e course.

W ueyew ardene J.— I agree.

S e t a side.