ANANDA RAJ Vs. A CRUSOE RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that arises for consideration in this revision is whether a Proprietor of an engineering Works, who works with lathes and other machines, is an artisan whose tools are not liable for attachment under Section 60 (1) (b) CPC. This contention having been negatived by the executing Court, the judgment debtor has filed this revision under Section 115 CPC questioning the correctness of the order of the trial Court.

(2.) THE respondent herein obtained a money decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with interest and costs which was an ex-parte decree. He sued out execution as the defendent failed to comply the decree. But the judgment debtor who entered appearance failed to file his objections. He has also failed to make payment in discharge of the decretal amount. Hence, an order of attachment of movables was ordered by the Trial Court. The movables were in fact attached and were brought before the Court for further proceedings. It was at that stage that the judgment debtor filed an application under Section 60 (1) (b) read with Order 21 Rule 56 and Sections 47 and 151 CPC seeking an order to release the attached movable properties claiming that they are tools of an artisan which were exempted from attachment.

(3.) HEARD the Learned Counsel appearing on both sides. Both of them have relied upon the following decisions in support of their contentions: