Banerjee, J. - (1.) In this application my own inclination was to grant the injunction. It would have been so convenient, if I could grant the injunction. It would have prevented a multiplicity of judicial proceedings. It would have saved the parties costs & harassment of a trial in Madras.
(2.) The issues in the Madras suit are two of the issues in the Calcutta suit. These two issues as formulated by counsel of the petitioner are (1) whether the plff. was induced by misrepresentation of the deft, to enter into the contract of employment, (2) whether the deft, or the plff. broke the contract, if these issues are decided in the Calcutta suit in favour of the deft, he gets a decree in the Madras suit as a matter of course. If these issues are decided against him, the Madras suit is dismissed.
(3.) The contract of employment obviously was made in Calcutta at the interview referred to in the letter dated 4-12-1944, from plff. to the deft. Prima facie the witnesses are in Calcutta. The deft, has filed his written statement in this suit & has incurred costs. He has to defend this suit here & fight it out. I think the balance of convenience is to stop the proceedings in the Madras suit & try the Calcutta suit. But how to stop it?;