IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 600 OF 2007 Mr.M.Ranchandra Raju. ... Appellant. V/s. Mrs.Prabha P. Shenoy ... Respondent. Mohan Rao i/b. S.K.Legal Associates for the appellant. Venkata Krishna Kunduru i/b. T.N.Tripathi for the respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, JJ. DATED : 18th August 2009. P.C. : Heard leaned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21st March, 2007 whereby the learned single Judge directed the defendant to furnish security in the sum of Rs.10 lakh to the satisfaction of the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court within the period prescribed in the said order. 3 The opening part of the impugned order has sketched the conduct of the appellant; wherein it has specifically mentioned that as per the bailiff report, produced on record, when the bailiff went to execute the attachment order, the defendant and his employees ran away with the property. It is also mentioned in the order that the defendant does not have any fixed residence within the jurisdiction of this Court. The defendant himself has admitted this fact in his affidavit filed in Notice of Motion No.1425/2005. He is occupying residential premises as a tenant and keep on changing the same. It is also mentioned in the order that the plaintiff had to take out proceeding even to get the address of the defendant. The defendant was directed by the Court to disclose his property. However, the properties disclosed in the affidavit by the defendant are not worth the suit claim. 4. In the appeal proceeding, the photo-state copies of the vouchers are filed by the defendant alleged to have been signed by the plaintiff acknowledging certain payments. Needless to mention that photostate copies cannot be relied upon. Apart from the fact that the appellant has not followed the procedure required to bring documentary evidence on record in appeal. By the impugned order, the appellant is only directed to furnish security to the satisfaction of the Court. 5. Having heard appellant and having examined the impugned order, no case is made out to interfere with the same. The view taken is a reasonable and possible view. Needless to mention that if the appellants desires to furnish security pursuant to the impugned order, he can do so within six weeks from today. Appeal is dismissed with this clarification with no order as to costs. (R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J.) (V.C.DAGA J.)