IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.866/1997 Ladduram Vs. Radhey Shyam 8.5.2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri B.L. Mandhana, for the appellant. Shri Jitendra Pandey, for the respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The appellant has challenged the judgment passed by the learned appellate court dated 4.8.1997 by which the judgment of the learned trial court dated 20.11.1995 has been set aside. The learned trial court by its judgment and decree dated 20.11.1995 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff respondent by deciding Issue No.6 in favour of the defendant appellant and allowing the objection of the defendant that the defendant being an agricultural artisan the suit was not maintainable on account of the provisions contained in the Relief to Agricultural Indebtedness Act 1957. The learned trial court having arrived at the finding on Issue No.6 deciding the same as a preliminary issue did not go into the merits on other issues and dismissed the suit. On an appeal being filed by the plaintiff the learned appellate court reversed the findings on Issue No.6 given by the learned trial court and remanded the case back to the trial court for deciding the case on merits on the remaining issues. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the findings of the learned appellate court on the Issue No.6 holding that the defendant is not an agricultural artisan and thus not an agriculturalist deserve to be set aside as the same are contrary to the same evidence on record. I have considered the rival submission and perused the record of the case and also the statutory provisions. The crucial question which is to be decided is whether the appellant is an agriculturalist, so as to avail the benefit of the provisions of the act. An agriculturalist has been defined under clause (b) of Section 2 which reads as follows : “2(b) “agriculturalist” means a person who earns his livelihood wholly or mainly from- (i)agriculture or (ii)rent from agricultural land, in case he belongs to any of the categories of persons mentioned in clauses (a) to (h) of sub section (1) of Section 46 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Rajasthan Act 3 of 1955),- and includes a person who ordinarily engages in agricultural labour or who works as an agricultural artisan;” The case of the appellant was that he was a carpenter and makes agricultural implements and earns his livelihood by making agricultural implements. The burden of establishing whether the defendant appellant falls within the definition of agriculturalist under clause (b) on account of being agricultural artisan rests upon the defendant himself. The defendant, as has been held by the learned appellate court is admittedly working abroad in the middle east countries has gone abroad on several occasions between 1987 to 1996 which fact has come on record. The defendant however did not specify in his statement as to what was the nature of his employment and who was his employer. In that view of the matter since these facts were within special knowledge of the appellant defendant and these facts not having been disclosed by the defendant appellant which would have enabled the court to come to the conclusion whether or not the defendants falls within definition of agricultural artisan and that he was employed in the country abroad to make agricultural implements, an adverse inference deserves to be drawn against the appellant. The words and the definition are in present tense namely “who works as an agricultural artisan. The present occupation would determine whether he is an agricultural artisan and not his past vocation. Even though the defendant may have stated that he is engaged in making agricultural implements but that by itself in my opinion would not be sufficient in the facts and circumstances of the present case to decide in favour of the defendant as the plaintiff would have no knowledge about the nature of the employment being persued by the defendant in middle east. Since the requirement of going abroad particularly in the middle east requires sponsorship and work permit to be issued entitling a person to take up employment in th middle east country the necessary documents and facts were in the possession and special knowledge of defendant himself which the defendant has failed to produce before the court and the burden of that the defendant is an agriculturalist on account of his working as a agricultural artisan. In view of the above facts which have been recorded by the learned appellate court the impugned 0rder does not call for any interference. This appeal is consequently dismissed. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial court on 01.8.2008 who shall proceed with the trial of the suit as ordered by the learned appellate court. The Registry is directed to return the record of the court concerned forthwith so as to reach the trial court before 01.8.2008. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS