Buttrose J:

These were two applications by summons in each case on the part of the defendant for an order declaring the writs of summons in the action and all subsequent proceedings including the judgments to be void or alternatively that the same be set aside for invalidity or alternatively irregularity.

The writs in question, both specially endorsed, were issued by the Comptroller of Income Tax against the defendant on 13 March 1958 and judgments were entered on 22 March 1958 in default of appearance. Bankruptcy Notices were then issued and served on the defendant on 4 July 1958 and after security had been lodged to the satisfaction of the Comptroller these Notices were set aside on 8 August 1958. Subsequently the judgments in both actions were paid and satisfied in full. Nothing further seems to have transpired in so far as these proceedings are concerned until 22 February 1960 when the two summons with which I am now concerned were taken out.

The grounds on which the present applications are based are:-

(1)that the writs were not issued or signed by the plaintiff but by a person who was neither the plaintiff nor his solicitor; and

(2)that there was a contradiction on the face of the writs as to the identity of the plaintiff.

Now, the plaintiff in each case was the Comptroller of Income Tax, Singapore, and both writs purport on the face of them to be issued by the plaintiff. They are in fact signed by one W Gordon described as an Assistant Comptroller of Income Tax, Singapore, and then follow the words "Plaintiff in Person". This phrase, in my view, is used merely in antithesis to "plaintiff's solicitor".

Under the Rules of the Supreme Court a writ and statement of claim must be signed either by the plaintiff's solicitor or by the plaintiff if, as here, he sues in person and the short point for decision is whether the writs and statements of claim endorsed thereon have been signed by the plaintiff in conformity with the Rules of the Supreme Court.

Section 90(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance provides that tax may be sued for and recovered in a Court of competent jurisdiction by the Comptroller in his official name. Now, the Comptroller is defined in s. 2 of the Ordinance as meaning "the Comptroller appointed under s. 5 of this Ordinance and includes for all purposes of this Ordinance except the exercise of the powers conferred upon the Comptroller by ss. 95, 96 and 99 of this Ordinance, a Deputy Comptroller or an Assistant Comptroller so appointed."

Having regard to this definition, I am of the opinion that an Assistant Comptroller is included in the term Comptroller in s. 90(1) of the Ordinance.

In the view I take, Mr. Gordon did not sign the writs and statements of claim as Assistant Comptroller of Income Tax which was merely his official title which described his appointment in the Income Tax Department. He signed as therein stated, namely, the plaintiff i.e. the Comptroller of Income Tax, Singapore, in which term title or official name he is included by virtue of the definition.

Similarly, under s. 90(2) of the Ordinance, which provides that the Comptroller may appear personally or by Counsel in any suit instituted under this section, Mr. Gordon as an Assistant Comptroller of Income Tax could appear as the Comptroller as by the definition he is included in the term.

I think the case of The Comptroller Of Income Tax, Singapore V. Dia Singh , CA to which I was referred and on which considerable reliance was placed by the defendant is distinguishable.

In that case judgment had been obtained by the Comptroller of Income Tax and a Bankruptcy Notice founded on the judgment had been issued in his name. A Bankruptcy Petition was then presented not by the Comptroller of Income Tax but by one William Gordon, Assistant Comptroller of Income Tax, personally, who in the affidavit accompanying the petition stated he was the petitioning creditor. It was the Comptroller of Income Tax who was the petitioning creditor a