pvr nm2189-appl417 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2189 OF 2011 IN APPEAL (LODG) NO.417 OF 2011 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3273 OF 2009 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3359 OF 2009 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3360 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.2334 OF 2009 Digjam Limited. ...Appellant vs. 1.WL Ross & Co.LLC. & Ors. ...Respondents --- Mr.J.P.Sen with Sanjay Grover & Mr.B.Rajasekhar, for Appellant. Mr.D.D.Madan, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Trupti Shetty i/b. Dhruve Liladhar & Co., for Respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr.C.D.Patel i/b. S.N.Fadia, for Respondent no.5. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED: 10th October,2011. P.C.:- 1. Heard. Notice of motion granted in terms of prayer clause (a). Notice of motion is disposed of. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (ANOOP V.MOHTA, J.) pvr nm2189-appl417 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL (LODG) NO.417 OF 2011 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3273 OF 2009 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3359 OF 2009 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3360 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.2334 OF 2009 Digjam Limited. ...Appellant vs. 1.WL Ross & Co.LLC. & Ors. ...Respondents --- Mr.J.P.Sen with Sanjay Grover & Mr.B.Rajasekhar, for Appellant. Mr.D.D.Madan, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Trupti Shetty i/b. Dhruve Liladhar & Co., for Respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr.C.D.Patel i/b. S.N.Fadia, for Respondent no.5. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED: 10th October,2011. P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides. The learned Single Judge has given elaborate reasons for his order. We have heard the pvr nm2189-appl417 - 2 - learned Counsel appearing for appellant. He mainly relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Appeal no.702 of 2003 dated 30.4.2004 to contend that the defendant can be directed to furnish security during the pendency of the suit even when the claim is for a decree for damages if the defendant is not having any property in the country. In our opinion, however, the submission is not well founded. In the suit admittedly the plaintiff is claiming decree for damages because, according to the plaintiff, the defendants are guilty of tort. It is settled law that when a decree sought is for the damages, the amount gets crystallized only on the date when the decree is passed. Therefore, in the suit for damages nobody can say with a degree of certainty as to what would be the amount for which decree would be passed. In our opinion, the only fact that the defendants may not be having any immovable property in India, is not enough for making an interim order for security for the decreetal amount without considering  whether the defendants have any pvr nm2189-appl417 - 3 - immovable property in any other country, and the possibility of the decree, in case, it is passed against the defendants being executed in that country. In our opinion, the order of this nature under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be made unless the Court records a definite finding that passing of such an order is necessary in the interest of justice. That it will be difficult for plaintiff to execute the decree in this country, in our opinion, cannot be said to be enough to hold that making of such an order is necessary to secure the ends of justice. The Civil Procedure Code has made provisions for securing the amount of decree that may be passed in suits in certain situations. In our opinion, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge was justified in declining to make order for furnishing security. The appeal is, therefore, rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (ANOOP V.MOHTA, J.)