The revision petitioner/judgment debtor (J.Dr.) raised objection in the execution proceedings that EP schedule property which is a residential house is not liable to be sold in execution of money decree against him on the ground that he is an agriculturist and agricultural labour. The lower Court repelled contention of the J.Dr. on the ground that the EP schedule house property was attached in the year 2005, in IA No. 173 of 2005 and that the J.Dr. did not raise any objection when it was attached. As the matter now stands, there is no material placed by the J.Dr. to show that he is an agriculturist or/and an agricultural labour. Even though, the J.Dr. is described as a business person in the execution petition, the J.Dr. did not deny the same. A businessman even if holds a small piece of land, cannot be styled as an agriculturist and will not come within the exemption under Section 60(1) proviso (c), CPC. The J.Dr. claims that he is both an agriculturist as well as an agricultural labour. In my opinion an agricultural labour is one who does not possess any agricultural land and earns money by agricultural labour work and his principal source of livelihood is only from agricultural labour. In the absence of any evidence before the executing Court and in the absence of raising objection at the stage of attachment in the year 2005, it does not lie in the mouth of J.Dr. now to contend that he is an agricultural labour and agriculturist in order to claim exemption under proviso (c) for sale of his house property. The objection raised by the J.Dr. in the execution proceedings, was validly overruled by the executing Court. I find no reason to interfere with the said order passed by the lower Court.

2. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed.