018-NLR-NLR-V-57-CAREEM-.-Appellant-and-UVAIS-Respondent.pdf
SA>7SOXF, J.—Careeni v. Uvuis
72
-1955Present: Sansoni, J.
CAREEM, Appellant, and UVATS, Respondent.
S. C. 82—C. li. Colombo, 5-3,4S7
Appeal—Security for costs of appeal—Deposit of sum of money—Requirement ofhyjyothcealion—Civil Procedure Code, s. 7S7.
When jnonoy is dc|jositc<l in Court as socurity for costs of uppoiil in Icmw ofsection 757 of tho Civil Procedure Code, faihiro to Jiypothecoto the moneyis a fatal irregularity.
.^^LPPEALi from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Colombo.
11. 11'. Tambtnh, with M. S. M. Nazeem, for tho defendant appellant.
P. J. Kuntlculasuriyd, for tho plaint ill'respondent.
September 2, 1955. Sansoni, J.—
Appeal rejected.
A preliminary objection has been raised to the hearing of this appeal.It is pointed out that the bond does not provide for hypothecation of thomoney deposited in Court as security for tho costs of appeal as requiredby scction'757 of the Code. Dr. Thambiah points out that tho error isdue to the appellant’s Proctor having been ill. I find, however, that theappellant’s Proctor has signed tho bond and it is therefore not open totho appellant to say that tho bond was executed when ho was not able tocontact his legal adviser. Whether the respondent will suffer prejudice)as a result of this defect in tho bond can only he decided when one knowswhether other claims by creditors to the money in dcjjosit will be putforward or not. As matters stand, the inonoy in deposit lias not beenhypothecated in favour of tho respondent and ho therefore has no prcfc-rent right to this monoy. I must uphold tho preliminary objection andreject this appeal with costs.