ORDER

Lort-Williams, J. - These are cross-applications, one by Dewan Jagbir Sawhney u/s 10, Civil P. C, to stay a suit filed in this Court by Bhagat Singh Bugga against Sawhney, and one by Bugga to restrain Sawhney from proceeding with a suit filed by him against Bugga in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Gujranwala. The Gujranwala suit was filed on 12th March 1940, and the Calcutta suit on 30th March 1940, but Bugga had filed a previous suit No. 1081 of 1937 in this Court on 26th June 1937, claiming the same reliefs. That suit was withdrawn by consent, with liberty to bring a fresh suit if necessary, because the parties had agreed to refer the dispute to arbitration which eventually proved infructuous. For the last 12 years Bugga has resided with his family, consisting of his mother and sisters, and carried on business in Calcutta as a broker and dealer in stocks and shares and is a member of the Calcutta Stock Exchange. Since 1936 Sawhney has employed him as his broker in various share dealings carried through in accordance with the rules and usages of the Calcutta Stock Exchange. Sawhney lives at Ramkola in the District of Gorakhpur near Lucknow and used to instruct Bugga by letter or telegram and sometimes orally in Calcutta. In 1937 a dispute arose over certain instructions given by telephone and telegram, both as to the purport of the messages, the times of receipt, and the state of the market, which resulted in cross-claims to the extent of Rs. 15,445 by Bugga and Rs. 10,724 by Sawhney. These being the circumstances, it has been argued by Mr. Isaacs on behalf of Sawhney that this Court has no option but to stay the Calcutta suit under the provisions of Section 10 which are mandatory. The facts disclose one of the most flagrant attempts to abuse the process of the Courts. Bugga lives and carries on his business as a stock. broker exclusively in Calcutta. Sawhney is the manager of the Ramkola Sugar Mills Ltd., and lives at Ramkola in the District of Gorakhpur. Both these places are many hundreds of miles from Gujranwala where Sawhney has filed his suit. Calcutta is over 1200 miles, and Ramkola over 1000 miles, whereas Ramkola is only about 600 miles from Calcutta which is easily accessible.

2. All the transactions between the parties were effected in Calcutta and instructions received there. No part of the causes of action arose in Gujranwala or elsewhere than in Calcutta. All the witnesses necessary for both parties to call in either suit, except Sawhney, live in Calcutta. All the documentary evidence, such as Bugga's books in daily use, is here. The facts about the contents and times of receipt of telegrams and telephone messages will have to be proved by Government officials working in Calcutta, the rules and customs of the Calcutta stock exchange and the market rates by officials of that body. If tried at Gujranwala, most of this evidence will have to be taken on commission and unnecessary expense incurred. Sawhney has no connexion whatever with the Gujranwala District and it is difficult to conceive how he was permitted to file his suit in that Court. The explanation is that in his plaint he described Bugga as "landlord and house proprietor - Wazirabad, District Gujranwala, who was for sometime carrying on business as a broker in Calcutta," The Judge at Gujranwala was induced to assume jurisdiction because Bugga owns an ancestral house and other immovable property at Wazirabad, and visits that place occasionally. According to Bugga's statement on affidavit the house and all the other properties are let out to tenants. This was confirmed by his own evidence in Court and that of another witness who said that when Bugga visited "Wazirabad he used to stay with the witness. Bugga has described him-self, in certain deeds registered at Wazirabad and in plaints, as resident there and his name is on the electoral roll. In spite of his statement that he had given up Wazirabad as a place of residence and had no intention of r