SINNADURAI , Appellant, and MANIMUGALAI, Respondent

106-NLR-NLR-V-61-SINNADURAI-Appellant-and-MANIMUGALAI-Respondent.pdf


Sinnadurai v. ikfanimugalai
431
Present: Basnayake, C.J., and Sanson!, J.SXN27ADU21AI, Appellant, and MANIMTJGALAI, Respondent
jS. O. 550—D. C. Jaffna, 10626
Civil Procedure Code—Section 218 (/)—Driver of an omnibus—Is he a " labourer ”or “ domestic servant"?
The driver of an omnibus is not a labourer or domestic servant within themeaning of section 218 (j) of the Civil Procedure Code.
1 (1913) 17 N. L. R. 83.
432
BASNATA£E, C. J.—Sinnadurai v. ttanitniugalai
A
/APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court, Jaffna.G. Ghellappah, for Defendant-AppeDant.
K. Sivagurunathan, for Plaintiff-Respondent.
October 9, 1959. Bahkayaktc, C.J,—
The only question which arises for decision in this appeal is whether thedriver of an omnibus belonging to the Ceylon Transport Board comes-within the provisions of Section 218 (j) of the Civil Procedure Code.That provision declares that “ the wages of labourers and domestic ser-vants ” shall not be liable to seizure and sale in execution of a decree ofcourt. In our opinion the driver of an omnibus does, not come withinthe ambit of either of the expressions labourer and. domestic servant .
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Sansojsi, J.—I agree.
Appeal drismissed.