NADESAN PILLAI Vs. THANKAVELU PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question in this revision is whether the defendant petitioner who is a tailor by profession is an "artisan" within S.2(2) of the Debtors (Temporary Relief) Act, Act 30 of 1975 who can claim stay of the suit, under S.3, there being no dispute that the suit is for "a debt" and that as he is not otherwise disentitled, he would be a "debtor" as defined in the Act, if he answers the definition of "artisan" "artisan" being one of the class of debtors to whom the Act applies. The court below rejected the claim for stay holding that a tailor is not an artisan within the Act.

(2.) The definition of the term 'artisan' includes "a person who normally earns his livelihood by practising craft either by his own labour or by the labour of the members of his family". The point in dispute is whether the petitioner falls within this inclusive part of the definition, the earlier part having admittedly no application to him. That the petitioner normally earns his livelihood through his professional labour as a tailor was not the subject of controversy. What requires consideration therefore is whether when he thus earns his livelihood he is practising a craft.

(3.) The word 'craft' is not defined in the Act. It is however given the following meanings in the Standard Dictionaries: