The court found that the petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory statutory requirement to deposit security for costs within the prescribed period and did not provide any evidence of service of the petition upon the respondents, except for the late response by the 3rd respondent. No application for enlargement of time to deposit security was made within a reasonable period, and the petitioner did not take necessary steps even after being prompted by the court. The absence of affidavits of service and the lack of compliance with pre-trial directions rendered the petition fatally defective. The court held that the petition was a non-starter and dismissed it for want of deposit of security for costs and lack of service or evidence thereof upon the respondents, with no order as to costs.