Raja Azlan Shah J:

On 3 February 1968 the appellant board filed a claim in the Sessions Court against the respondent for an order for ejectment. The respondent was employed as a watchman and in consequence of his employment and for the more effective performance of his duties he was allowed to occupy a portion of the school premises rent free. On 31 March 1967 his services were terminated. The board employed a new watchman in his place. The respondent was asked to vacate the premises. He refused to do so. The defence allege wrongful dismissal and aver that the respondent is seeking a declaration to that effect in the High Court. In a cross-action filed on 18 March 1968 in the High Court the respondent sought a declaration that the purported dismissal was ultra viresa nd null and void and that he continued to be and still continues to be employed by the board. There is also an alternative claim for damages for wrongful dismissal.

An application was then made by the respondent presumably under cl 2(1) of the Third Schedule to the Courts Ordinance, 1948 to stay the Sessions Court proceedings pending the outcome of the declaratory suit in the High Court. The ground in support