Lord Pearson J:

(delivering the judgment of the Board): In 1951 and 1952 the appellants, Bajaj Textiles Ltd, had taken over the rights and liabilities of the firm Bajaj Textiles, and the respondents, Gian Singh and Company Ltd, had taken over the rights and liabilities of the firm Gian Singh and Company. The appellants were the plaintiffs in the action, which they commenced against the defendants (now the respondents) nearly eight years ago on 19 July 1963 claiming the sum of $1,336-35 as the balance of price of goods sold and delivered after giving credit for certain items. For convenience the appellants will be referred to as "the plaintiffs" and the respondents as "the defendants". The defendants alleged a set-off and counter claim which as amended was for the sum of $690,377-66 as the balance in their favour on a running account, of which extensive particulars were given. The action did not come to trial until 2 May 1967. According to a statement of defendants` Counsel recorded in the learned judge`s notes (and so far as appears from those notes not disputed), the long delay was due to the plaintiffs after a change of solicitors making a very late application for particulars which necessitated a postponement of the trial when it was imminent. The hearing was on second, third, fourth, fifth and eighth May 1967 and on 22 May 1967 the learned Judge in his reserved judgment decided in favour of the defendants and made an order "that the Registrar of the High Court do take an account of all transactions on the running account between Gian Singh & Co. and Bajaj Textiles and Gian Singh & Co. Ltd and Bajaj Textiles Ltd from 14 May 1951 to 31 December 1962 and kept in the books of Gian Singh & Co. and Gian Singh & Co. Ltd" The plaintiffs appealed to the Federal Court of Malaysia, but judgment dismissing the appeal was given on 29 February 1968 and the formal order was made on 14 March 1968. An order granting leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was made on 17 June 1968. Since then nearly three years have elapsed. The appellants lodged a printed case and were represented in this appeal, but the respondents did not lodge any printed case and were not represented in this appeal. The appellants are asking for the judgments of the trial Judge and the Federal Court to be set aside and for a new be ordered.

The learned judge, Chua J, found the following facts as to the nature of the dealings between the parties:

...Hardial Singh, Inder Singh, Hira Singh and Balwant Singh are brothers. Prior to 1951 they were all partners in the firm of Gian Singh & Co, the firm of Bajaj Textiles and some other firms in Singapore, Malaya and India. Gian Singh & Co. was the firm which indented goods from all over the world and had all the necessary banking facilities. In 1951 the partnership was dissolved. Hira Singh and Balwant Singh took over and carried on the business of Gian Singh & Co. and Inder Singh took over and carried on the business of Bajaj Textiles as sole proprietor. Prior to the dissolution of the partnership large quantities of goods had been ordered from all parts of the world by Gian Singh & Co. and confirmed letters of credit through the banks had been established and firm contracts had been entered into. Under the deed of dissolution of the partnership these goods when they were received by Gian Singh & Co. were to be divided in these proportions - 271/2% to Hardial Singh, 25% to Inder Singh, 23% to Hira Singh and 23% to Balwant Singh. The brothers were to pay to Gian Singh & Co. for the goods delivered to them. After the dissolution of the partnership, Gian Singh & Co. delivered the goods to the brothers as and when they arrived. In January 1952 Gian Singh & Co. Ltd, the defendants, were established which took over all the assets and liabilities of the firm of Gian Singh & Co. and Balwant Singh became and is still the managing director. On the 17 September 1951, Bajaj Textiles Ltd, the plaintiffs, were in