A party cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own improper actions by suppressing material facts in the plaint and obtaining an order of arrest of the ship, and the Court has the inherent jurisdiction to stay a plaint by treating it as complete and by notionally removing the suppression for that purpose.

( 1 ) THE parties have agreed before us that the appeal should be disposed of on the applicant's petition, since almost all the papers necessary are to be found there. We have heard the stay application along with the appeal and we dispose of both together.

( 2 ) IT is an appeal from a judgment dated the 1st of July, 2002 whereby the first court refused to allow the application of the appellant/defendants, who had applied under Order 7 Rule 11 for summary rejection of the plaint in the admiralty suit. In the petition, there is a statement that the suit, even if not dismissed should be stayed. However, the prayer for stay is not made in terms in the prayer portion in the Court below. In our opinion, the order for stay being a lesser order than and order for outright dismissal, the appellant would be entitled to pray for either before us. The plaint proceeds on six separate bills of lading. We caused the plaint to be produced before us and we found, to our extreme dissatisfaction, that the bills of lading, although annexed to the plaint, are so annexed in a seriously truncated form, which make those positively misleading.

( 3 ) NONE of the annexed bills of lading contains the clauses annexed thereto, which are some 19 in number, and amongst which occur the two most important clauses 3 and 9, whereupon the entire application of the appellant was based in the Court below. Those are as follows :"3. Jurisdiction. Any dispute arising under this bill of lading shall be decided in the country where the carrier has his principal place of business, and the law of such country, shall apply except as provided elsewhere herein. 9. Live Animals and Deck Cargo, shall be carried subject to the Hague Rules as refereed to in Clause 2 hereof with the exception that notwithstanding anything contained in clause 19 the carrier shall not be liable for any loss of damage resulting from any act, neglect or default of his servants in the management of such animals and deck cargo".

( 4 ) THE case in the plaint relates to the failure of the appellant to deliver 456 malaysian logs out of 578 which, according to the plaintiff, were lying on the deck of the vessel.

( 5 ) THE plaintiffs state that the proportionate value of the said undelivered 456 logs is (we give approximate figures) Rs. 1. 09 crore and that the port charges, custom duty and insurance cover thereof were respectively 4. 14 lakh, 6 lakh and 10. 9 lakh.

( 6 ) OUT of the six bills of lading, with the exception of one which relates to 135 logs, all the other five, relating to much the larger part of the lost cargo expressly state that those logs were shipped on deck.

( 7 ) IN the plaint, the following paragraphs viz. paragraph Nos. 13,14,16,17, 18, 19 and 25, which are set out below give the plaintiffs' version of the case. Those seven paragraphs of the plaint mentioned above are set out below as the facts of the Order 7 Rule 11 application are all to be found there, and if not there, nowhere at all:"13. As per the stowage plan of the vessel out of the aforesaid 642 logs being the subject-matter of the six bills of lading contained in Annexures "a" to "e" which were loaded on board the vessel 578 logs were lying on the deck of the vessel. 14. The defendant vessel arrived at the Port of Calcutta on 7th March, 2000 and started discharging the cargo lying on its deck on and from 15th March, 2000. 16. As the time of discharge of the cargo lying on the deck of the vessel, it was found that 456 logs out of the aforesaid 578 logs which was lying on the deck of the vessel were missing and had been short landed. 17. In breach of the defendant's duty as carriers and/or bailees for reward and/or in breach of the contract contained in and/or evidenced by the six bills of lading contained in Annexures "a" to "f" hereof, the defendants have failed to deliver 456 logs whereby the plaintiff has suffered loss and damage. 18. The plaintiffs state that the defendant have also acted in br