Jayasinghe v. Dayaratne ■
1952Present: Pulle J.
JAYASINGHE, Petitioner, and DAYARATNE (A. G. A., Kegalle),
S. C. 128—In the matter of an application for a Writ in the nature of aWrit of Mandamus under section 42 of the Courts Ordinance
Mandamus—Security for costs of respondent—Power of Court to order deposit.
Tn ft.-n application for a writ of Mandamus the Court has discretionary power toorder the petitioner to deposit in Court a sum of money as security for the costsof the respondent.
I HIS was a motion praying that the petitioner in an application fora writ of mandamus he called upon to deposit a sum of money assecurity for the costs of the respondent.
H. W. Jayewardene, with P. Ranasinghe, for the petitioner.
Jansze, Crown Counsel, with E. R. de Fonseha, Crown Counsel,for the respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
PXJLLE J.—Jayasinghe v. Dayaratne
August 7, 1952. Prams J.—
The motion on which I am asked to make an order prays that thepetitioner be called upon to deposit a sum of money to the credit ofthe proceedings which would be sufficient security for the costs of therespondent.,
One of the grounds urged in support of the motion is that the petitioneris not in a position to meet a claim for costs in the event of an order beingmade against him. I would not regard the poverty of a petitioner as thesole ground for asking him to furnish security for costs.
Whether I should order security or not is purely discretionary. With-out in any way prejudging the issues that fall to be determinedat the hearing of the application it seems to me that, apart from theallegation that the petitioner is not possessed of property, this is a fitcase in which I should order security. The local option poll was held on. a voters’ list to which no objection was taken. Under the relevant ruleswhen a local option poll is held on what is termed a final list it is stated tobe final and conclusive for all the purposes of the rules.
The only point taken against the validity of the poll is that the respond-ent had failed to take the advice of the Advisory Committee in terms ofrule 13. In regard to this the respondent states- that no advice ofthe Committee was needed as the exact boundaries of the area could bedetermined in terms of rule 11 read with rule 10a. Further it is submittedthat rule 13 did not cast any duty on the respondent in every case toconsult the Committee.
The delay of two months in applying for the writ is also urged againstthe petitioner.
In the exercise of my discretionary powers I order the petitioner todeposit in Court a stun ofRs. 315 as security for the costs of the respondentbefore the 24th August, 1952. If he fails to make the deposit theapplication will stand dismissed with costs.
Petitioner ordered to deposit securityfor costs of the respondent.
JAYASINGHE Petitioner, and DAYARATNE (A. G. A.Kegalle ),Respondent