KAILASA PADAYACHI Vs. DURAIAPPA KACHIRAYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court below has written a long order in this matter but I have found it very difficult to understand its reasoning; it seems to me waste of time to criticize the judgment. Far from a desire to decide the substance of the dispute between the parties, the order of the Court below only exhibits an anxiety to discuss points of law and an equal anxiety to go wrong on them.

(2.) The Revision Petition has been filed against an order of the learned District Munsiff passed in the following circumstances.

(3.) A decree-holder was alleged to have received the decree-amount, but it returned out that even before the date of this alleged payment a third party had obtained an order for attachment of that decree. So far as one can gather from the dates available in the record, the payment is said to have been made before the original judgment-debtor was served with a prohibitory order. It was contended by the attaching decree-holder that there had in fact been no payment and at one stage of the proceeding the decree-holder also swore that the payment was not true, though a receipt purporting to have been given by him was produced by the judgment-debtor and its genuineness was admitted by the decree-holder. As the merits of the case have not been gone into, I do not wish to say more on this aspect of the matter at this stage.