JUDGMENT

Mackney, J - In Civil Regular Suit No. 3521 of 1932 of the Court of Small Causes, Rangoon, the present applicant, the R.M.M.A. Chettyar firm, sued the present respondent, Iparthi Sathiah, together with two others, Iparthi Mahalaohimi and Salla Sathiah, for recovery of a certain sum of money due on a promissory note which had been executed by the two latter parties, but not by Iparthi Sathiah. The plaintiff alleged that Iparthi Sathiah and the other two parties were partners in an aerated water business, and that Iparthi Sathiah had given them authority to take loans on behalf of the business. Iparthi Sathiah denied that he was a partner with the other two men, or that he had ever guaranteed loans which should be made to them. He contended that he was not liable under the promissory note. The learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes remarked that the case involved points of law and fact. On the point of law he held that Iparthi Sathiah could not be liable under the promissory note as his name does not appear upon it. This finding alone was, of course, sufficient to justify the dismissal of the suit against defendant 1. The Court did so dismiss the suit against defendant 1, Iparthi Sathiah whilst granting a decree against the other two parties. However the learned Judge went on to deal with the facts of the case. He discussed the evidence as to whether defendant 1 did guarantee loans which should be made to the other two defendants and whether the business was run by the other two defendants on their own account or not. The learned Judge evidently accepted the defendants' version of the facts, for he remarked that the evidence adduced sufficiently rebutted the allegations of the plaintiff. This case came before the High Court in revision, but the application for revision was dismissed.

2. The R.M.M.A. Chettyar firm has now in Civil Regular Suit No. 7362 of 1933 in the Court of Small Causes, Rangoon sued Iparthi Sathiah for payment of Rs. 765-13-0 as money lent and advanced to him. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant-respondent, Iparthi Sathiah, was and still is the owner of the aforementioned aerated water business; that the defendant went away to India in June 1930: that at the time of his departure he directed his representatives, Iparthi Mahalachmi and Salla Sathia, to carry on the business and take loans from the plaintiff firm when required for the purpose of carrying on the business: and that the said Iparthi Mahalachmi and Salla Sathia did carry on the business according to these instructions and from time to time received advances from the plaintiff firm for the purpose of the business. The sum which the plaintiff now sought to recover was the balance due of the moneys so lent. The plaintiff claimed that as the moneys were utilized for the purpose of the defendant's business and the defendant has benefited thereby, he was liable to repay the same. The defendant raised the plea that the matter was res judicata. This plea was upheld by the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes who found that it had been held in Civil Regular Suit No. 3521 of 1932 that the defendant's representatives were running the business on their own account and risk. In the opinion of the learned Chief Judge, the finding was not outside the point raised by the plaintiff. Accordingly he dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs. The R.M.M.A. Chettyar firm has now applied to this Court in revision on the ground presumably that the Court of Small Causes has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law owing to wrongly deciding that the matter before it was res judicata.

3. In the earlier suit the matter at issue was the liability of the respondent, Iparthi Sathiah, on the promissory note. The plaintiff had to show either that Iparthi Sathiah had himself executed the promissory note, or that he was bound by the signatures of the two men who had actually executed it. The plain, tiff had to prove that these two men had exe