Back
RAMEN CHETTIAR v. VYRAVEN CHETTIAR
NLR41V371
1940 Present:
Howard C.J. and Wijeyewardene. J.
RAMEN CHETTIAR v. VYRAVEN CHETTIAR.
37-D. C. Ratnapura, 6,472.
Concurrent actions-One action brought outside Ceylon-Application
to stay proceedings in Ceylon-Burden on applicant-Evidence relating to
law
and procedure in foreign court-No advantage to plaintiff-Inconvenience
and, expense no ground for application-Civil Procedure Code, s.
839.
A Court has power to order that the proceedings in an
action in Ceylon be stayed pending the decision of a concurrent action in a
Court outside Ceylon, where the matters in dispute in the transactions are
substantially the same.
But the Court will not exercise this power where (a)
there is no material on which the Court could form an opinion as to the law and
legal procedure in the Court outside Ceylon, and (b) there is no material
before the Court justifying the finding that by proceeding with the action the
plaintiff cannot obtain any advantage from it which he would not obtain in
the foreign Court.
The fact that if the application is not granted it
would cause the defendant inconvenience and expense is not by itself ground for
the exercise of the inherent powers of the Court.
THIS was an appeal
from an order of the District Judge of Ratnapura directing that the proceedings
in the present action be stayed pending the final decisions in two cases in the
Chief Court of the Pudukkottai State.
The plaintiff instituted the present action against the
defendant to have it declared that the defendant held three-eighth shares of an
estate called " Morning Site " in trust for the plaintiff and for an
order against the defendant to render an account of the profits and income of
the estate until the execution of a conveyance in favour of the plaintiff. The
defendant filed answer pleading that the conveyance had been taken in the
defendant's name pending the payment of the purchase price by the plaintiff of
his shares of the property but that the plaintiff had subsequently renounced
his rights to the property.
The application on which the learned District Judge made the
order appealed against was made on the following grounds : -
(a) That the plaintiff has instituted the present action to
harass and oppress the defendant.
(b) It is convenient and
necessary to have all the issues tried in the High Court of Pudukkottai, as all
the parties are permanent residents of that State.
(c) The defendant will be put to unnecessary expense and
hardship in getting ready for two trials on the same subject-matter in
Pudukkottai and Ceylon.
N. E. Weerasooria, K.C. (with him J.
A. T. Perera), for plaintiff, appellant.-The relief claimed in the two
suits is not the same. Even if the issues are substantially the same, the Court
should clearly see that in staying an action it does not do injustice. It is
true that where there are two actions for the same matter in two Courts in the
same country, such a proceeding is prima facie vexatious and the Court will
generally, put the plaintiff to his election and stay one of the suits. But if
one of the actions is i
