1. The suit was instituted for recovery of damages on the ground that the defendant who attached in execution of his decree against the plaintiff a decree for money which the plaintiff held against a third person allowed the decree by his negligence or by collusion with the judgment-debtor of the plaintiff to lapse by efflux of time. The defendant has realised the amount of his decree from the properties of the plaintiff. The Subordinate Judge gave a decree to the plaintiff finding the facts in his favour. Sankaran Nair J. in revision has set aside the judgment of the Subordinate judge on the ground that the plaintiff, the holder of the attached decree, could have executed the decree in spite of the attachment, and in support of this proposition the learned judge relies on the cases Pathumma v. Idivi Beari (1903)13MLJ265, Saint Pillai v. Krishnaswamy Chetty I.L.R. (1897) M. 417 and Aoher Chandra Dass v. Lal Mohan Dass I.L.R. (1892) C. 778. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff who appeals against his judgment that Section 373 of the Civil Procedure Code (Act XIV of 1882), expressly lays down that when a decree is attached execution of it shall be stayed by the court wh