KANTA BHATNAGAR, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Munsif and Judl. Magistrate, Bilara dated 23 -9 -1978.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition are that in a suit filed by the non -petitioners a money decree was passed in their favour against the petitioners. The decree -holders filed Execution Petition. In those proceedings, an application under Section 4 of the Rajas -than Scheduled Debtor's (Liquidation of Indebtness) Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') was filed by the petitioners, claiming themselves to be scheduled debtors and certificate issued by the Tehsildar, Bilara, certifying the petitioners to be scheduled debtors was filed. Refuting that contention, decree -holders filed that the reply that the petitioners were not agricultural, labourers but were carrying on shop of gold and silver business. Bath the parties led evidence. The learned Munsif on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties, arrived at a conclusion that the annual income of the petitioners judgment debtors was more than Rs. 2,400/ - per year and, therefore, they do not come within the definition of agricultural labourers and, are, therefore, not entitled to the benefit under the Act. In view of that finding the application of the petitioners was rejected and attachment under order XXI, Rule 54 was ordered to be issued on the decree -holders filing the process for the same. The grievance of the petitioners against that order is two fold. It has been strenously pressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the learned Munsif has committed illegality in holding that their income is more than Rs. 2,400/ - per year. The second ground of attack on the impugned order is that the learned Munsif has wrongly interpreted the term 'house hold income' as being the combined income of both the petitioners and other members of the family living with them Controverting the arguments, the learned Counsel for the non -petitioners submitted that it was on the admission of Jetihmal, petitioner himself that he and his wife and three sons are earning by labour, that the court has calculated yearly income of the family. Meeting out the second contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners it has been urged, that, the word house hold income 'means' the income of the whole family and not that of the judgment -debtors alone.
(3.) SO far as the first point is concerned, the order is quite clear -and based on the appreciation of evidence. The learned Magistrate has discussed the evidence of the parties and based his conclusion mainly on the statement of jethmal, petitioner who has deposed that five members of his family were doing labour. On the basis of the evidence led by Jethmal the court has calculated the amount of income of the male members at the rate of Rs. 4/ - per day and that of the lady at the rate of Rs. 3/ - per day by labour. He has also taken into consideration the fact that average working days were about 15 days in a month. This reasoning is well founded because agricultural labourers have seasonal work and many a times remain idle Hence, the calculation about the income of the petitioner and his family members has been properly calculated and it would be wrong to say that finding of the learned Munsif is based on surmises or conjectures.;