- (1.) THIS is a second appeal by the judgment-debtor and is directed against the order of the District Judge, Alwar dated 18th April, 1970 by which he affirmed the order passed by the Civil Judge, Alwar dismissing the objection petition of the appellant under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) GHANSHYAM Das respondent obtained a decree for Rs. 5380/- on 6-5-1967 against Harjiram from the Court of Civil Judge, Alwar. The decretal amount including the cost and the interest came to Rs. 6622. 38 paise. The decree-holder took out execution application on 27-7-1967 and sought the attachment of the following articles:- (1) Lathe (Kharad) machine. (2) Drilling (Barma) machine. (3) Transformer welding machine. (4) Electric motor of 3 Horse Power used for operating the above machines. (5) Other miscellaneous articles like chisel, wrench, Sandasi, hammer, file etc. The attachment was effected on 12-8-1967. On 22-12-1967 the judgment-debtor filed an objection under Section 47 Civil Procedure Code claiming that he is an artisan and the articles attached are tools of artisan and as such they are not liable to attachment and sale under proviso (b) of Section 60 (1) of the Code of civil Procedure. The decree-holder opposed the claim of the judgment-debtor. The executing court held an inquiry and found that the judgment-debtor is a mechanic and he is therefore an artisan. But the articles that have been attached being machines operated by electric power cannot be termed as tools of artisan. In the appeal by the judgment-debtor, the learned District Judge agreed with the view taken by the executing court and dismissed the appeal.
(3.) I have perused the evidence and heard learned counsel for the parties. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the judgment-debtor is a mechanic and he undertakes the repairs of motor vehicles, tractors and machines. He has a workshop to carry on his work as an artisan and has therefore put up a lathe machine, a drilling machine and a welding machine. All these machines, according to him, have been put up for the purpose of carrying on his work as a mechanic and he himself operates the machines and undertakes the repairs. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the judgment-debtor can work as a mechanic even if he does not have the lathe machine, the drilling machine and the welding machine. According to him, the articles mentioned under item No. 5 are sufficient to carry on his trade as an artisan. His submission in short is that proviso (b) to Section 60 (1) of the Code of Civil procedure afforded protection to the ordinary tools of artisan and implements of mechanised character are not contemplated.;