Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 | Order 45 | Appeals to the Supreme Court

Order XLV Rule 14 CPC - Increase of Security Found Inadequate

Order XLV Rule 14 empowers the court to require additional security when security furnished by either party becomes inadequate during a Supreme Court appeal. The consequences depend on whether the appellant or respondent originally furnished it.

Key principle: An appeal does not by itself prevent execution of the decree. Where security is insufficient, the court may protect the parties by requiring further security and making appropriate directions.

Text of Order XLV Rule 14 CPC

14. Increase of security found inadequate.

(1) Where at any time during the pendency of the appeal the security furnished by either party appears inadequate, the Court may, on the application of the other party, require further security.

(2) In default of such further security being furnished as required by the Court,-

(a) if the original security was furnished by the appellant, the Court may, on the application of the respondent, execute the decree appealed from as if the appellant had furnished no such security;

(b) if the original security was furnished by the respondent, the Court shall, so far as may be practicable, stay the further execution of the decree, and restore the parties to the position in which they respectively were when the security which appears inadequate was furnished, or give such direction respecting the subject-matter of the appeal as it thinks fit.

Official legislative source: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (India Code, PDF). The wording above follows the central provision; applicable High Court amendments and court rules should also be checked.

Meaning and purpose of Rule 14

In this rule, security means financial or other assurance accepted by the court to protect a party against loss or to secure compliance with the decree or a later Supreme Court order. Inadequate security means that the existing assurance no longer provides sufficient protection in the circumstances. Further security is additional assurance required by the court to address that shortfall.

The rule applies during the pendency of the appeal and allows the other party to request an increase. The court assesses the circumstances and may direct the party who furnished the security to provide more. It is not an automatic increase on demand.

Consequences of failure to provide additional security

Rule 14(2)(a): Security furnished by the appellant

If the appellant does not furnish the further security ordered, the respondent may apply to have the appealed decree executed as though the appellant had furnished no security. The court has discretion to allow execution. This provision prevents inadequate appellant security from obstructing enforcement indefinitely.

Rule 14(2)(b): Security furnished by the respondent

If the respondent defaults, the court must, as far as practicable, stay further execution and restore the parties to the positions they occupied when the inadequate security was furnished. Alternatively, it may issue directions concerning the subject matter of the appeal that it considers appropriate. Restoration depends on what is practically possible.

How an application for further security works

The party seeking protection identifies the existing security and explains why it is insufficient.
Supporting material may include changes in asset value, enforceability or the extent of the obligation secured.
The court considers the application and may require additional security on terms it fixes.
If the direction is not complied with, the applicant may seek the relevant relief under Rule 14(2)(a) or 14(2)(b).

The specific filing procedure, evidentiary requirements and timelines depend on the court's applicable rules and orders.

Illustrative example

Suppose a decree-holder is permitted to execute a decree during an appeal after furnishing security. If that security later becomes insufficient and the decree-holder fails to provide additional security as directed, the court may stay further execution and, where practicable, restore the earlier position under Rule 14(2)(b). Conversely, where an appellant's security is inadequate, Rule 14(2)(a) permits the respondent to seek execution after the appellant defaults.

Order XLV Rule 13 governs the court's powers regarding execution, stay, security and protective directions pending appeal. Order XLV Rule 10 addresses additional security or payment at an earlier stage before transmission of the appeal record. Order XLV Rule 11 concerns the effect of non-compliance with an order under Rule 10.

Section 109 CPC concerns appeals to the Supreme Court subject to the applicable constitutional framework; Article 133 of the Constitution addresses civil appellate jurisdiction and Article 136 provides for special leave to appeal. These are distinct jurisdictional routes; Order XLV Rule 14 does not itself confer a right of appeal.

For procedural and jurisdictional materials, see the Supreme Court of India and the India Code portal.

Frequently asked questions

Can either party be ordered to provide further security?

Yes. Under Rule 14(1), the other party may apply when security furnished by the appellant or respondent appears inadequate.

Does inadequate security automatically cancel an appeal?

No. Rule 14 sets out consequences relating principally to execution and protection of the subject matter. It does not provide for automatic dismissal of the appeal.

Is a stay of execution automatic during an appeal?

No. Rule 13 provides that the decree remains executable unless the court directs otherwise. Any stay and security requirements depend on the applicable order.

Legal note: This article explains the central CPC provision for general information. Check current statutory amendments, relevant court rules and case-specific judicial orders before relying on it in proceedings.