Mani Bai, an infant by her next friend Rukmani Bai vs Lodd Govind Doss

In this case an order has been made requiring the next friend of a female infant plaintiff to give security for the costs of the suit. It is not

contended that the order can be supported unless there is jurisdiction to make the order u/s 380 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We do not think

the words ""such plaintiff"" in the second paragraph of the section can be construed as applying to the infant plaintiff''s next friend, and there is no

evidence in the present case that the plaintiff does not possess sufficient Immovable property within British India. Assuming, however, that the

Court would have jurisdiction to make the order if satisfied that the next friend ""did not possess sufficient Immovable property,"" we are of opinion

that the order should not have been made in the present case. We agree with the decision in Bai Porebai v. Devji Meghji ILR (1898) B. 100 that

in the case of infant plaintiffs, unless the circumstances are exceptional the English practice, under which an infant plaintiff could not be required to

give security for costs, should be followed. We do not think the circumstances of the present case are of so exceptional a character as to warrant

the making of the order.

We must accordingly set aside the order with costs here and in the Court of first instance.