Abdul Hamid J:

This is an application by the defendants that -

(a) All further proceedings in this suit be stayed until the plaintiff provides security for costs in the sum of $3,500 and has paid the first defendant all costs due and outstanding from him to the first defendant in civil suit No. 1138 of 1966 in the High Court at Kuala Lumpur and the appeal therefrom; and

(b)Upon providing such security and payment of the costs aforesaid this summons-in-chambers be restored for hearing the application for an order that this suit be struck out on the grounds that it is frivolous and/or vexatious and/or is an abuse of the process of this Court.

It is the applicants' contention that civil suit No. 1138/1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the previous suit") is substantially the same as the present action.

In the previous suit, the plaintiff/respondent claimed that as adoptive son of Valliappa Chettiar and by reason of the adoption, he is one of the beneficiaries of the estate of the deceased. Referring to the appointment of the first defendant/ applicant as executor and trustee on 20 February 1961, the plaintiff questioned the validity of the purported will in respect of which the first defendant was so appointed. The plaintiff further raised the issue as to his interest as beneficiary of the deceased's estate by reason of the adoption deed of 7 June 1962. He also alleged that the first defendant refused to hand over the estate to him. The other allegations relate to the power of the first defendant as executor and trustee to sell the property of the estate, the first defendant's careless and reckless handling of the estate in particular the sale of two rubber estates in Rawang, the attempt to sell similar properties in India, the attempt to sell below market value the properties in Kuala Lumpur and the closure of the moneylending business of the said estate. The plaintiff prayed that -

(a) a receiver for the estate of RMPRMP Valliappa Chettiar, deceased be appointed;

(b)the said defendant do forthwith hand over to the said receiver the entire movable and immovable properties of the estate of the said deceased and/ or that the said receiver shall forthwith take over the entire possession and control of the said estate and shall be responsible for the preservation and management of the said estate pending the decision of the Court in India in respect of the validity or otherwise of the will purported to have been executed by the said deceased;

(c)such receiver upon such decision by the Court shall apply to this Court for directions as regards the distribution of the estate of the said deceased;

(d)that such receiver shall reduce or cause to be produced to this Court a complete statement of affairs and accounts of estate of the said deceased and such periodical accounts as may be directed by the Court; and

(e)pending the appointment and taking over the possession of the estate of the said deceased an injunction to restrain the defendant or his agent or servant from disposing of or otherwise dealing with the estate of the said deceased.

With reference to the previous suit, it is disclosed that the plaintiff took no action to proceed with the matter and in February 1971 the defendant applied to have the suit dismissed for want of prosecution. The plaintiff made no objection and an order was made on 22 March 1971 dismissing the action for want of prosecution.

In the present suit, the plaintiff sued in addition to the first defendant, also in the capacity as executor and trustee of the deceased's estate, two other defendants, the adoptive mother of the plaintiff (wife of the deceased) as second defendant and the daughter of the deceased as the third defendant.

The plaintiff has repeated his earlier allegation that by reason of the adoption, he is one of the beneficiaries of the estate of the deceased. Alternatively he alleges that he is entitled to inherit the share of the properties of his adoptive mother. The plainti