VELAPPA CHETTY v MEYDIN

VELAPPA  CHETTY v. MEYDIN.

D. C., Chilaw, 1258.

Procedure-Motion to take plaint of the file-Action raised by attorney of plaintiff-power of attorney not duly stamped at time of filing action- Defect cured on the day such motion was made-Bona fides of agent- Stamp Ordinance No. 3 of 1890, s. 31-Civil Procedure Code, s. 25- Action on promissory note-Right to demand particulars of admitted payments.

Where defendant moved that plaint be taken off the file, as the agent who brought the action in the name of his principal did not appear to be authorized by a properly stamped power of attorney, and on the day of the discussion of the motion the defect was cured,

Held, that it was wrong to order the plaint to be taken off the file and restored again to it as from the date on which the defect was cured, inasmuch as the Ordinance No. 3 of 1890, section 31, rendered such powers valid as from the date of its execution, and the agent seemed to act bond fide.

In an action on a promissory note it is not usual to deliver particulars of payments admitted by plaintiff, where the note does not appear ex facie to be barred.

THE circumstances under which the plaintiff appealed in this case are fully stated in the judgment of the Supreme Court.

The argument took place on the 6th and 10th December, 1895.

Layard, A.-G. (with him Sampayo), for appellant.

Dornhorst and Jayawardana, for respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

16th December, 1895. WlTHERS, J.

Two orders are appealed from in this case. The more important one is that of the 17th October last, directing "the plaint to be "taken off the file and again restored as from this date, plaintiff " bearing all costs so far incurred."

This order was made under the following circumstances :

On the 15th August an action was instituted against the defendant respondent on his promissory note dated the 19th day of September, 1889, for Rs. 1,000 and interest.

It was instituted by the presentment of a plaint in the name of Kolentha Velan Chetty (one of the payees of the note) by his attorney Velappa Chetty.

The plaint was entertained and filed. It was duly stamped, and it contained the requisite particulars (except the place of residence of the plaintiff, which was afterwards supplied). It was presented by a proctor on the plaintiff's behalf, and signed by the proctor.

A copy of the plaintiff's agent's power, certified by a proctor, was filed with the plaint, at the foot of which it is noted as a document produced with the plaint.

Summons was issued for the defendant to appear and answer on the 3rd October. The defendant by his proctor a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document