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' solicitors wrote to the defendants' solicitors demanding payment of the amount due on the judgment. On 7 April the defendants' solicitors wrote to the plaintiffs' solicitors informing them that they had received instructions to appeal against the judgment and that they would forward the amount of the judgment to them on their undertaking to refund the said sum should their clients' appeal be allowed. The plaintiffs' solicitors replied on 9 April, informing the defendants' solicitors that their clients were not prepared to give any undertaking, and that, if the judgment debt was not paid to them by 13 April they would levy execution without further notice. On 14 April the defendants solicitors wrote to the plaintiffs ' solicitors that as the plaintiffs were not prepared to give any undertaking as required in their letter of 7 April their instructions were to pay the amount of the judgment into Court pending appeal and they were therefore making the necessary application to pay the amount into Court. The plaintiffs' solicitors replied to this letter on 16 April and informed the defendants' solicitors that any application on the part of the defendants to pay the judgment debt into Court pending appeal would be strongly resisted by their clients, and that there was no question of their clients not being able to refund the judgment debt in the event of the defendants' appeal being successful.

On 19 April the defendants' solicitors paid into Court the sum of $1,832.13 pursuant to O. LVIII r. 1(3)(f) and on the same day served the plaintiffs' solicitors with notice in the following terms:

Take notice that we have this day as solicitors of Universal Service Agency the abovenamed defendants paid into Court $1,832.13 being the amount of judgment pursuant to judgment dated 28 March 1965 and entered herein on 7 April 1965.

The money was paid into Court by means of a direction for payment into Court obtained from the Registrar and it was as follows:

The Accountant-General, Singapore, is hereby directed to receive the sum of dollars one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two and cents thirteen only ($1,832.13) being the amount paid in by M/s. Pillai & Co, the solicitors for the abovenamed defendants being the amount of judgment pursuant to judgment dated 26 March 1965, and entered herein on 7 April 1965.

The judgment was in the following terms:

26 March 1965

THIS ACTION coming on for trial before the Honourable Mr. Ambrose J on 18 September 1964 and on 26 March 1965 in the presence of Counsel for the plaintiffs and for the defendants AND UPON reading the pleadings AND UPON hearing the evidence adduced and what was alleged by Counsel on both sides THIS COURT DOTH ADJUDGE that the plaintiffs do recover against the defendants the sum of $1,832.13 AND THIS COURT DOTH OR