9911796707
TMI Blog1931 (5) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uted by the appellant on 19th June 1924 to recover a balance alleged to be due by the respondent upon a running account in respect of moneys advanced and goods sold and delivered, with interest to the date of the suit. The suit was instituted in the name under which the appellant carried on business, and the respondent inter alia pleaded that the appellant was precluded from enforcing his rights under the contract set out in the plaint, as he had failed to register his business name as prescribed by the Business Names Registration Ordinance No. 6 of 1918, S. 9 of that Ordinance provides as follows : Where any firm or person by this Ordinance required to furnish a statement of particulars or of any change in particulars shall have made de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er proceedings might be barred by limitation, the appellant made an application to the Supreme Court on 10th March 1927 to advance the hearing of the appeal, which was successfully opposed by the respondent. 5. In this situation, the appellant instituted the present suit, Action No. 4687 on 2nd June 1927 in the District Court of Ratnapura. The amount claimed in the plaint was the same as in Action No. 4122, with the addition of further interest. The respondent filed his written answer on 5th July 1927, in which he pleaded inter alia as matter of law that the action No. 4122 of this Court and the decree entered of record therein are a bar to this action. 6. It is unnecessary to detail the manoeuvres of the parties in the procedure w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wo suits are the same and the subject-matter may be taken to be the same. 9. The District Judge concluded in the respondent's favour on the ground that the decree in Action No. 4122, though subject to appeal, was final and enforceable. In the Supreme Court Schneider, S.P.J., with whom Lyall-Grant, J., agreed, appears to have proceeded on two alternative views, viz., that the present appellant's cause of action had been merged in and superseded by the decree, or otherwise that in both actions the appellant was seeking to recover the same debt, and that, as he could not get decree for the same debt twice over, he was not entitled to maintain the second action at all. The learned Judge found it unnecessary to decide a question raise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd action was not adjourned pending the decision of the appeal in the first action, as that would have simplified procedure and saved expense. 12. Accordingly, their Lordships are of opinion that the appeal should be allowed and that the decree of the District Judge, dated 31st August 1927, and the decree of the Supreme Court on that judgment dated 13th March 1928, should be recalled, the appellant to have the costs of this appeal, except the costs of his petition for the admission of additional documents in relation to which the respondent should have his costs, and as to which there should be a set-off, that the appellant should have his costs in relation to the issues of law on which, the decree of 31st August 1927 was pronounced, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
