Affidavit grounds of belief must be stated specifically, while procedural time for appeal papers may be extended on security for costs.

An affidavit opposing an interlocutory application was found insufficient because it relied on bare assertions of belief without stating the grounds of belief with sufficient particularity, as required by Order XIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The paper-book issue was treated as a matter of procedural discretion: despite delay beyond what could reasonably be explained, further time was granted on terms, including security for costs to protect the respondent and costs of the application to abide the appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an affidavit opposing an interlocutory application satisfied the requirement that the grounds of belief be stated with sufficient particularity under Order XIX, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (ii) Whether time should be further extended for filing the paper-book, with security for the costs of the appeal.

Issue (i): Whether an affidavit opposing an interlocutory application satisfied the requirement that the grounds of belief be stated with sufficient particularity under Order XIX, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The affidavit relied on a general statement of lack of means and a bare averment that the deponent's statements were true to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. The grounds of belief were not disclosed, and the proviso to Order XIX, Rule 3 required such grounds to be stated where belief was relied upon on an interlocutory application.

Conclusion: The affidavit did not comply with Order XIX, Rule 3 and was insufficient to justify the order sought.

Issue (ii): Whether time should be further extended for filing the paper-book, with security for the costs of the appeal.

Analysis: The Court found that the delay exceeded what could reasonably be accounted for, but on rehearing it exercised its discretion to grant further time. At the same time, it directed security for costs to protect the respondent's position, and made the costs of the application costs in the appeal.

Conclusion: Further time was granted, subject to security for costs, in favour of the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The judgment enforces strict compliance with affidavit requirements on interlocutory matters, while ultimately granting the appellants additional time to proceed with the appeal on terms as to security for costs.

Ratio Decidendi: On interlocutory applications, statements of belief in affidavits are inadmissible unless the grounds of belief are stated with sufficient particularity, and extension of procedural time may be granted in the Court's discretion on terms including security for costs.

---