JAGAT NARAYAN, J.—This is a defendants revision application against an appellate order of the Senior Civil Judge, Sirohi.

2. The plaintiff got the cut crop of the defendant lying on the threshing-floor as well as the grain lying in a cart near the threshing-floor attached under O. 38 R. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. An objection was filed under O. 38 R. 12 which provides that the plaintiff cannot apply for the attachment before judgment of any agricultural produce in the possession of an agriculturist. The learned Senior Civil Judge held that the cut crop lying on the threshing-floor was agricultural produce, but the grain lying in the cart near the threshing-floor was not such produce within the meaning of R. 12 of O. 38. In my opinion his decision is correct.

3. The "agricultural produce" has been used in the Code of Civil Procedure in a special sense and not in the comprehensive sense in which the term is generally used. R. 43 of O. 21 provides for the attachment of movable property other than agricultural produce in possession of the judgment-debtor. R. 44 of that Order provides for the attachment of agricultural produce. A perusal of these two rules shows that the term "agri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document