RSA No.1864 of 1986 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1864 of 1986 Date of decision: 25.2.2011 Inderjit Singh ...Appellant Versus Sunder Singh Bajwa and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Ankur Soni, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Kabir Sarin, Advocate for the respondents *** Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral) The present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 22.5.1986 passed by the then learned Additional District Judge, Ropar, vide which judgment and decree dated 24.12.1984 passed by learned trial court in favour of the present appellant- plaintiff was set aside by accepting the appeal and the suit of the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed. Appeal was admitted for hearing by this Court vide order dated 5.8.1986. When the case listed for regular hearing on 21.3.2009, none appeared on behalf of the appellant and notice for actual date of hearing was ordered to be issued to him. Notice received back with the report that appellant has since left India. However, Mr.Vishal Goel, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant when the following order was passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 9.12.2010: RSA No.1864 of 1986 2 “Present: Mr.Vishal Goel, Advocate for the appellant Mr.Kabir Sarin, Advocate for the respondents *** On 21.3.2009, none had appeared for the appellant. Actual date notice was issued to the appellant for 26.5.2009. As per office report, the appellant in this case has left India. However, a request has been made by Mr.Vishal Goel, Advocate, who is appearing on behalf of the appellant in this case, for adjournment. List on 25.2.2011. In the meantime, the Court thinks that this case is a fit case where the provisions of Order 41 Rule 10 CPC can be invoked. Let the appellant deposit a sum of ` 1,00,000/- in this appeal as a security for the costs which may be imposed at the time of decision of the appeal.” The appellant has not complied with the said order. It has been stated by learned counsel for the appellant that he is unable to contact the appellant, who is living abroad. On the other hand, it has been stated by learned counsel for the respondents that as appellant has left India and has not complied with the order dated 9.12.2010 passed by this Court, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed under Order 41 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘the Code’). It is pertinent to reproduce Order 41 Rule 10(2) of the Code, RSA No.1864 of 1986 3 which reads as under:- “10.- Appellate Court may require appellant to furnish security for costs.- (1) The Appellate Court may, in its discretion, either before the respondent is called upon to appear and answer or afterwards on the application of the respondent, demand from the appellant security for the costs of the appeal, or of the original suit,or of both; Where appellant resides out of India.- Provided that the Court shall demand such security in all cases in which the appellant is residing out of India, and is not possessed of any sufficient immovable property within India other than the property (if any) to which the appeal relates. (2) Where such security is not furnished within such time as the Court orders, the Court shall reject the appeal.” There is no dispute that the appellant has left India. Specific order was passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court directing the appellant to deposit a sum of ` 1 lac as security for the costs. However, the said order has not been complied with. Hence, the present appeal is hereby rejected under Order 41 Rule 10(2) of the Code. (RAM CHAND GUPTA) February 25, 2011 JUDGE ‘gsv’