JUDGMENT 1. Following the decisions in Seshayyangar v. Jainulavadin 3 M. 66 : 4 Ind. Jur. 507 : 1 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 603 and Srinivasa Sastrial v. Subramania Aiyar 17 M.L.J. 583, we must hold that the order of the District Judge calling for security from the pauper appellant under Order XLI, Rule 10, was not without jurisdiction. We have been referred to the decision of the Bombay High Court in Khemraj Shrikrishna Das v. Kisanlala Surajmal 42 Ind. Cas. 67 : 42 B. 5 : 19 Bom. L.R. 771, but we see no reason to question the decision of this Court in Seshayyangar v. Jainulavadin 3 M. 66 : 4 Ind. Jur. 507 : 1 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 603, the correctness of which, apparently, has never been doubted by later Benches of this Court, and with which we are also disposed to agree. 2. This petition is dismissed with costs.