Short Note : 1. In execution of a decree passed on an award against the applicant in favour of the non applicant about 35 frames of windows and doors and a pair of bullock cart wheels were attached for being sold. The applicant by his application dated 25-6-1977 raised an objection that in accordance with the provisions of the M.P. Gramin Rin Vimukti Tatha Rin Sthagan Adhiniyam. 1975 (No. 32 of 1975) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) debt in respect of which the said decree was passed was wholly discharged on the ground that he was a rural artisan in the rural area as defined in clauses (j) and (k) of section 3 of the Act The decree holder by a reply urged that the provisions of the said Act was not applicable and the debt in question could not be treated as wholly discharged. The executing Court held on evidence that the applicant was not a rural artisan in a rural area and therefore, not entitled to any benefit under section 4 of the Act. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged before this Court. Held: The words 'rural areas' and 'rural artisan' have been defined in the Act as under :- (j) '''rural area' means an area other than an area comprised within the limits of a local authority; (k) 'rural artisan' means a person who does not held any agricultural land – (i) whose principal means of livelihood is production or repair of traditional tools, implements and other articles or things used for agricultural or purposes ancillary thereto, in rural area or. (ii) who normally earns his livelihood by practising a craft either by his own labour or by the labour of the member of his family in rural area." 2. In the light of the aforesaid provisions it was necessary for the applicant to plead and prove that his principal means of livelihood was production or repair of traditional tools etc in the rural area or that his normal earning for his livelihood were by practising a craft either by his own labour or by the labour of the members of his family. The executing Court his found that the applicant is a furniture maker and gets the items of furniture prepared through his servant also. The applicant was examined in the executing Court. The executing Court his found that the applicant is a furniture maker and gets the items of furniture prepared through his servant also. The applicant was examined in the executing Court. In his very short examination in chief he stated. I work as a carpenter, that I prepare plough, Kalpa Juda and a bullock-cart also if material is supplied to me. He did not specifically state that his principal means of livelihood is the production or repair traditional tools, implements and other articles or things used for agriculture or purposes ancillary thereto. From the evidence recorded by the executing Court it has been found that besided the applicant he also employs a servant to prepare items of furniture. Frames of doors and windows do not fall into the category of items specified in clause (i) of clause (k) of section 3 of the Act. In these circumstances when the applicant has failed to make out a case of being a rural artisan in the rural area then he could not claim the benefit provided by section 4 of the Act. Consequently, in may opinion, the view taken by the executing Court calls for no interference. Revision dismissed.