Judgment :- 1. A very short but interesting question regarding the interpretation of S.2 (c) (vi) of Act of XXXI of 1958 comes up for adjudication in this Civil Revision Petition. 2. The petitioner, who is running a rice mill and is also owning a pump set, purchased oil on credit from the respondent Company to work the machinery in the mill and the engine attached to the pump set and executed a promissory note for the amount due. The respondent filed a suit on the promissory note when the petitioner pleaded that he was entitled to the benefits of Act XXXI of 1958. The lower court rejected his claim and hence the Civil Revision Petition. 3. Under Sub-clause (vi) of clause (g) of S.2 any debt which represents the price of goods purchased for purpose of trade is excluded from the definition of 'debt'. The question for consideration is whether the debt covered by the promissory note in this case is one which represents 'price' of goods purchased for purpose of trade'. 4. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 2nd Edn. Vol. 32, p. 303, appears: "Trade" in its primary meaning is the exchanging of goods for goods or goods for money; and in a secondary meaning it is any business carried on with a view to profit, whether manual or mercantile, as distinguished from the liberal arts or learned professions and from agriculture. The word, however, is one of very general application, and must always be considered with the context with which it is used." Bhagwati J., in Attar Hussain v. Fazli Brothers, Ltd., (AIR. 1946 Bom. 481) in considering the word 'trader in the Original Side Rules of the Bombay High Court quotes with approval the following passage from the judgment of Channel, J. in Palmer v. Snow (1900 (1) Q. B. 725), p. 727: "Now, although'tradesman' may be sometimes used to describe something different from a gentleman, or in centra-distinction to other kinds of persons, I do not think the word is used in that sense in this Act. It seems to denote a person carrying on trade buying and selling and a barber does not come within that description." Accepting this view Bhagwati, J. has held that the word 'trader' imports buying and selling of commodities and is not to be understood in the wider sense. It seems to denote a person carrying on trade buying and selling and a barber does not come within that description." Accepting this view Bhagwati, J. has held that the word 'trader' imports buying and selling of commodities and is not to be understood in the wider sense. The Supreme Court in considering the meaning of the word 'demand' has observed in Mangoo Singh v. Election Tribunal (AIR. 1957 S. C. 871): "When the context makes the meaning of a word quite clear, it becomes unnecessary to search for and select a particular meaning out of the diverse meanings a word is capable of, according to lexicographers." 5. These observations of learned judges bring into relief that'trade' in its primary sense means buying and selling and if that meaning is clear from the context in which it is used, it is not necessary to search for and select a wider meaning. In the context with which we are concerned, the expression'goods purchased for purpose of trade' must be taken and construed as a whole. 'Goods' means 'merchandise' and 'goods purchased for purpose of trade' can only mean merchandise or commodities purchased for sale. Therefore it appears to be fairly clear from the context in which the word is used that it can mean only buying and selling and the goods purchased must be for the purpose of sale. In that view the debt covered by the promissory note in this case is not one exempted under S.2 (c) (vi) of the Act, 6. The consequence is, the Act applies to the debt & the other questions regarding the principal, instalments, interest etc. have to be considered in the light of that decision. The decision of the lower court is therefore set aside and the suit is remanded for passing a fresh decree applying the provisions of the Act. In the circumstances, the parties will suffer their respective costs. Allowed.