Lord Thankerton.—

This appeal is from a decree of the Supreme Court of the Island of Ceylon, dated 13th March 1928, confirming a decree of the District Court of Ratnapura, dated 31st August 1927 and made in Action No. 4637, in which the appellant is plaintiff, and the only question in the appeal is whether the suit is barred by reason of the proceedings in a former suit by the appellant against the respondent, which was Action No. 4122 in the same Court.

Action No. 4122 was instituted by the appellant on 19th June 1924 to recover a balance alleged to be due by the respondent upon a running account in respect of moneys advanced and goods sold and delivered, with interest to the date of the suit. The suit was instituted in the name under which the appellant carried on business, and the respondent inter alia pleaded that the appellant was precluded from enforcing his rights under the contract set out in the plaint, as he had failed to register his business name as prescribed by the Business Names Registration Ordinance No. 6 of 1918. S. 9 of that Ordinance provides as follows :

"Where any firm or person by this Ordinance required to furnish a statement of particulars or of any change in particulars shall have made default in doing so, then the rights of that defaulter under or arising out of any contract made or entered into by or on behalf of such defaulter in relation to the business, in respect of the carrying on of which particulars were required to be furnished, shall not be enforceable at any time while he is in default, by action or other legal proceedings, either in the business name or otherwise."

After protracted procedure in Action No. 4122, the District Judge on 17th January 1927 made a decree under which the appellant was ordered to furnish to the Registrar within 14 days from the date thereof the necessary particulars for the registration of his business name and the respondent was ordered to pay to the appellant, on the latter's compliance with the said order as to registration, the sum of Rs. 54,57746 with interest as prayed for in the plaint, and the respondent was awarded Rs. 5,000 with interest thereon in satisfaction of his claim in reconvention, and the respondent was ordered to pay the larger part of the costs of the action. On 19th January 1927 the respondent filed an appeal against that decree to the Supreme Court, in which he inter alia still maintained his defence founded on the appellant's nonregistration of his business name. While this appeal was pending the appellant complied with the requirements of the Business Names Registration Ordinance.

Being faced with the possibility that, if the respondent's appeal succeeded, any further proceedings might be barred by limitation, the appellant made an application to the Supreme Court on 10th March 1927 to advance the hearing of the appeal, which was successfully opposed by the respondent.

In this situation, the appellant instituted the present suit, Action No. 4687 on 2nd June 1927 in the District Court of Ratnapura. The amount claimed in the plaint was the same as in Action No. 4122, with the addition of further interest. The respondent filed his written answer on 5th July 1927, in which he pleaded inter alia as matter of law

"that the action No. 4122 of this Court and the decree entered of record therein are a bar to this action."

It is unnecessary to detail the manoeuvres of the parties in the procedure which ensued; it is sufficient to state that the appellant unsuccessfully sought to have the trial of the second action adjourned until after the decision of the respondent's appeal in the first action. Issues of law were adjusted in the second action as follows

(1) Is this action barred by the action No. 4122 of this Court and the final decree entered on record therein ? and

(2) Is there a decree that can operate as a bar to the action in Decree on Court No. 4122 ?

On 31st August 1927 the District Judge upheld the respondent's plea and dismissed the action (No. 4687