{"id":5914,"date":"2025-07-07T05:58:11","date_gmt":"2025-07-07T05:58:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=5914"},"modified":"2025-07-07T05:58:22","modified_gmt":"2025-07-07T05:58:22","slug":"suits-by-foreign-plaintiffs-and-the-mandate-of-security-for-costs-law-limits-and-interpretations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/suits-by-foreign-plaintiffs-and-the-mandate-of-security-for-costs-law-limits-and-interpretations\/","title":{"rendered":"Suits by Foreign Plaintiffs and the Mandate of Security for Costs: Law, Limits, and Interpretations"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/span>Case Summary<\/span><\/h2>\n

This case revolves around the interpretation of the proviso to Order XXV Rule 1(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)<\/strong>, particularly in the context of whether courts are mandatorily required to direct a foreign-residing plaintiff without sufficient immovable property in India to furnish security for costs. The issue arose in a commercial suit concerning intellectual property rights, and the matter was referred to a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court to reconcile conflicting decisions by Coordinate Benches on the interpretation of this provision.<\/p>

\n
\n

Table of Contents<\/p>\nToggle<\/span><\/path><\/svg><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n