Choor Singh J:

In this action judgment was given on 26 March 1965 in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants in the sum of $1,832.13 and costs, which were taxed at $1,911.95. The plaintiffs proceeded to levy execution on the judgment and the defendants' property was seized under a writ of seizure and sale. The defendants applied by summons in chambers for the writ of seizure and sale to be set aside and the property seized to be released on the ground that the writ of seizure and sale was void because it was issued after the plaintiffs had received notice of the payment into Court by the defendants of the full amount of the judgment and the taxed bill of costs.

After hearing Counsel for both parties, I dismissed the defendants' application with costs. The defendants applied for leave to argue the matter further in open Court. This application was granted. I heard further argument in open Court but saw no reason to revise the order I had already made. As the defendants have indicated that they desire to appeal against my decision, I now proceed to give my reasons for it.

The facts are not in dispute and they are as follows. On 2 April 1965 the plaintiffs' solicito