ORDER 1. In exceptional circumstances, it has been laid down, an infant plaintiff can be called on to furnish security for costs. Mani Bai v. Lodd Govind Doss (1907) 18 M.L.J. 155. In the case of a pauper appellant again, it has been uniformly held in this province (though a different view prevails in the other Courts) that if special grounds are shown, he can be required to find security. Seshayyangar v. Jainulavadin I.L.R. (1880) Mad. 66, Saldanha v. Hart I.L.R. (1920) Mad. 902, Narayana Rao v. Veerayya AIR1933Mad519 and Subbiah Thevar v. Balasubramania Pandia Thalavar (1931) M.W.N. 1157. Thus, the fact that the appellant here is both a minor and a pauper, does not by itself entitle him to resist the application. In this case the effect of Burn, J.s order is that the minor pauper is a mere creature in the hands of persons well able to find security. This being so, the learned Judges order is confirmed and the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with costs.