These were applications by the first and second defendants to set aside the writ of summons.

The grounds of objection were in each case the same and were as follows:-

(a) that the said Writ does not specify the description of the Plaintiff as required by Order 2 Rule 4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1934;

(b) that the Plaintiff, being a moneylender, did not produce a statement of his account as required by Section 9 of the Moneylenders Ordinance (Chapter 218);

(c) that the Plaintiff, being a moneylender, did not state by indorsement on the Writ the particulars required by Order 3 Rule 10 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Judicature in England, which said Rules are to be followed and adopted in this Honourable Court by virtue of the preliminary rules under the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1934.

As regards the first objection, there is no doubt that the writ is irregular, if the description of the plaintiff is not given (Order 2 Rule 4). The local rule is different in this respect from the English rule. As, however, it is merely non-compliance with a rule of procedure, the matter could have been dealt with under Order 63 rule 1, and the writ amended on payment of co