(1.) THIS civil revision petition is filed against the judgment of the Principal District Munsif, Dindigul, in O. S. No. 1005 of 1978 granting a decree in favour of the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,250-50 from the defendant.
(2.) THE suit was filed on the basis of a promissory note executed by the revision petitioner in favour of the respondent for a sum of Rs. 1,000. Before the lower Court, the plea of the revision petitioner was that he was compelled to execute the suit promissory note that the promissory note was not supported by consideration and that a sum of Rs. 489 was due from the respondent to him and in any event, he was a rural artisan entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act (Act XXXI of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). THE lower Court after considering the evidence let in by both sides, came to the conclusion that the promissory note is supported by consideration and that the revision petitioner is not entitled to the benefits of the Act, but found the case of the revision petitioner that a sum of Rs. 489 is due from the respondent to be true and deducted the same from the suit claim and passed a deree for the balance. Aggrieved by this judgment, the revision petitioner had filed this revision.
(3.) THE next contention of the revision petitioner is that he being a medical practitioner n homeopathy, he is a rural artisan as defined in section 3 (k) of the Act (XXX1 of 1976) and as such no suit can be filed against him. THE argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that a homeopathy practitioner is one who prepares medicine by manual labour and administers it to his patients and as such, he can only be construed as a rural artisan. Section 3 (k) of the Act reads as follows: