The Ceylon Tea Plantation Co, Ltd., V. Carry

[Full Bench. ]

Present: The Hon. Sir Joseph T. Hutchinson, Chief Justice,
Mr. Justice Middleton, and Mr. Justice Wood Renton.

THE CEYLON TEA PLANTATION CO., LTD., v. CARRY.

D. C., Negombo, 7, 224.

Decree ordering a party to account-Final order-No appeal lies to Privy Council-Value not ascertained-Courts Ordinance,, s. 42. A decree ordering a party to a suit to render an account (which decree finally decides the rights of the parties on the principal question at issue between them) is a final decree within the meaning of section 42 of the Courts Ordinance.

But an appeal to the Privy Council would not lie against such a decree, inasmuch as it is impossible to say till the account has been taken that the decree is for or in respect of a sum or matter at issue above the amount or value of Its. 5, 000.

PLAINTIFF brought this action to compel the defendant to render an account generally from the beginning of his employment under him. He alleged in the plaint that it would appear when the account was taken that the defendant owed him Rs. 30, 000.

The defendant admitted his liability to account for the last three years of his employment only. The District Judge ordered the defendant to render an account as prayed for in the plaint; the Supreme Court in appeal affirmed the decree of the District Court,

The defendant applied for a certificate preparatory to an appeal to the Privy Council, that as regards amount or value and nature the case fulfils the requirements of section 42 of the Courts Ordinance.

The Supreme Court issued notice to the plaintiff to show cause why the certificate should not be granted.

Elliott, for the plaintiff, respondent. -The order is not a " final order. " The order in this case was made under section 203, Civil Procedure Code. Form 41 of the schedule gives the form of a decree to be entered under sections 203 and 204; the decree must specify the date of further hearing. Section 204 expressly speaks of the decree as postponing the final determination of the action. There can be only one final decree in a case. The present order was purely interlocutory, as it merely postponed the date of trial. Counsel also referred to Jackson v. Colombo Commercial Co., 1 Periannan Chetty v. Rahappa Chetty. 2 Sections 508 and 509 are general sections; section 204 is the particular section that applies to this case.

Even if the order in this case is a final order, the defendant has not shown that the order he is seeking to get rid of renders him liable to pay Rs. 5, 000 to the plaintiff. The case must be looked at from the

1 (1892) 2 C. L. R. 127.                                                                                         2 3 S. C. C. 39.

point of view of the person who wants to get rid of the judgment (Allan v. Pratt, 1 Bandara v. Bandara 2), [Wood Renton J. -What is the effect of the words '' or is otherwise a fit one " ?] These words have been inadvertently taken over from the Indian Code (Jackson v. Colombo Commercial Co. 3).

H. A. Jayewardene (with him Wadsworth), for the defendant, petitioner. -The order in this case has the effect of a final order (Rahimbbhoy Habibbhoy v. Turner, 4 Saiyid Muzhar Hossein v. Mussa mat Bodha Bibi 5). These judgments of the Privy Council over-rule the Ceylon judgments cited. [Wood Renton J. -The Privy Council did not consider the question of " value. " The cases cited by you were applications for special leave to appeal, and the Privy Council might have granted leave even if the amount involved was only one rupee. ] The Privy Council says that the Indian Courts were wrong in refusing a certificate, and does not grant the certificate as an indulgence. Counsel also referred to Kahoranehihami v. Angohamy.

Elliott, in reply, cited re Estate of Kuda Banda. 7

Cur. adv. vult.

November 17, 1909. Hutchinson C. J. -

This is an application for a hearing in review preparatory to appeal to the Priv

Click Here to Read the rest of this document