DINANATH NARPATRAI Vs. DIVANCHAND (NO2)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Yesterday we delivered judgment in appeal No. 57 of 1928 (Suit No. 266 of 1928) between the same parties. Our judgments in that appeal may be referred to for the general position between these two brothers who are engaged in this complicated litigation. It also exemplifies that they are each carrying on business as sole proprietor in Bombay, Calcutta, Cawnpore and Lahore.

(2.) This present appeal is is another suit No. 798 of 1928 from an order made by Sir Norman Kemp on January 29, 1929, directing that this suit be stayed, and ordering that the plaintiff be at liberty to file a fresh suit in Calcutta or Cawnpore or at both places. It was further ordered that the plaintiff do pay to the defendants their costs of the suit. That order was founded substantially on the ground that the suit was vexatious and oppressive and an abuse of the process of the Court. The learned Judge also doubted whether this Court had any jurisdiction to hear it at all.

(3.) What the plaintiff did was that on March 12, 1929, he filed a suit in the Cawnpore Court, so he/informs us. Then, on April 2, 1929, the memorandum of appeal in the present suit was filed, and the first question that arises is what does it mean ? Is it an appeal merely against so much of the learned Judge's order as directed the appellant to pay the costs ? Or is it an appeal against the whole order, viz., directing a stay and also the question of costs ?