Ajoy Nath Ray, ACJ. - (1.) The parties have agreed before us that the appeal should be disposed of on the applicant's petition, since almost all the papers necessary are to be found there. We have heard the stay application along with the appeal and we dispose of both together.
(2.) It is an appeal from a judgment dated the 1st of July, 2002 whereby the first Court refused to allow the application of the appellant/defendants, who had applied under Order 7 Rule 11 for summary rejection of the plaint in the admiralty suit. In the petition, there is a statement that the suit, even if not dismissed should be stayed. However, the prayer for stay is not made in terms in the prayer portion in the Court below. In our opinion, the order for stay being a lesser order than and order for outright dismissal, the appellant would be entitled to pray for either before us. The plaint proceeds on six separate bills of lading. We caused the plaint to be produced before us and we found, to our extreme dissatisfaction, that the bills of lading, although annexed to the plaint, are so annexed in a seriously truncated form, which make those positively misleading.
(3.) None of the annexed bills of lading contains the clauses annexed thereto, which are some 19 in number, and amongst which occur the two most important clauses 3 and 9, whereupon the entire application of the appellant was based in the Court below. Those are as follows : "3. Jurisdiction. Any dispute arising under this bill of lading shall be decided in the country where the carrier has his principal place of business, and the law of such country, shall apply except as provided elsewhere herein. 9. Live Animals and Deck Cargo, shall be carried subject to the Hague Rules as refereed to in Clause 2 hereof with the exception that notwithstanding anything contained in clause 19 the carrier shall not be liable for any loss of damage resulting from any act, neglect or default of his servants in the management of such animals and deck cargo". ;