Judgment :- This civil revision petition is filed against the judgment of the Principal District Munsif, Dindigul, in O. S. No. 1005 of 1978 granting a decree in favour of the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,250-50 from the defendant. 2. The suit was filed on the basis of a promissory note executed by the revision petitioner in favour of the respondent for a sum of Rs. 1,000. Before the lower Court, the plea of the revision petitioner was that he was compelled to execute the suit promissory note that the promissory note was not supported by consideration and that a sum of Rs. 489 was due from the respondent to him and in any event, he was a rural artisan entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act (Act XXXI of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The lower Court after considering the evidence let in by both sides, came to the conclusion that the promissory note is supported by consideration and that the revision petitioner is not entitled to the benefits of the Act, but found the case of the revision petitioner that a sum of Rs. 489 is due from the respondent to be true and deducted the same from the suit claim and passed a deree for the balance. Aggrieved by this judgment, the revision petitioner had filed this revision. 3. The first contention urged on behalf of the revision petitioner is that the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration and that he was forced to execute the same and as such the lower Court ought not to have held that the promissory note is supported by consideration. The lower Court after considering the evidence and the circumstances of the case and mainly relying upon the fact no complaint regarding the alleged coercion by the respondent herein was made before any authority, believed the case of the respondent and came to the conclusion that the promissory note is supported by consideration. The appreciation of the evidence by the lower court cannot be said to be perverse and hence this plea of the revision petitioner cannot be entertained. 4. The appreciation of the evidence by the lower court cannot be said to be perverse and hence this plea of the revision petitioner cannot be entertained. 4. The next contention of the revision petitioner is that he being a medical practitioner n homeopathy, he is a rural artisan as defined in section 3 (k) of the Act (XXX1 of 1976) and as such no suit can be filed against him. The argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that a homeopathy practitioner is one who prepares medicine by manual labour and administers it to his patients and as such, he can only be construed as a rural artisan. Section 3 (k) of the Act reads as follows: " ‘rural artisan’ means a person who does not hold, whether as owner, tenant or mortgagee with possession,or partly in one capacity and partly in another any agricultural land and whose annual household income does not exceed two thousand and four hundred rupees, and (i) whose principal means of livelihood is production or repair of traditional tools, implements and other articles or things used for agriculture or purposes ancillary thereto, or (ii) who normally earns his livelihood by practising any craft either by his own labour or by the labour of the members of his family in any rural area”. From the above definition, it is seen that the rural artisan is (1) who should not own agricultural land, (2) his annual household income should not exceed two thousand and four hundred rupees, (3) his principal means of livelihood is production or repair of traditional tools, implements and other articles or things used for agriculture or purposes ancillary thereto, (4) He must earn his livelihood by practising any craft either by his own labour or by his labour of the members of his family in any rural area. As per the explanation, "rural area” means any area not being the City of Madras or the City of Madurai or the area comprised in a municipal town or a township constituted under any law for the time being in force. The argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is a person who earns his livelihood by practising a craft by his own labour. The practising of the craft according to him is administering homeopathy medicines to the petitioner. The argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is a person who earns his livelihood by practising a craft by his own labour. The practising of the craft according to him is administering homeopathy medicines to the petitioner. The question is whether a homeopathy practitioner can be said to be a person practising any craft. The meaning given to the word ‘craft’ in the concise Oxford Dictionary is skill, cunning, deceit, art, trade; the meaning given to the word ‘craftsman’ is one who practises a craft. From a reading of the entire section, the craft can be said to qualify rural artisan or one engaged in the nature of work pertaining to rural artisan. In Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, the word ‘artisan’ is defined. The meaning given is the same as one for ‘artificer’. The artificer is defined as skilled workman i e., one who makes something as distinguished from one who only does something. For example, a hairdresser is not an artificer, because he only does something. A designer of patterns for a calico-printer was held to be an artificer. The following quotations from as English case is also extracted in Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary: "I cannot conceive that the word ‘artificer’ only applies to persons engaged in such occupations as require merely manual labour. The party who makes this application to the Court, himself states that he is a ‘pattern designer, ‘a person in fact who makes the drawing of the pattern, which is then engraved on the printing rollers, and, subsequently, transferred in colours to the fabric itself. He is therefore the party who sets all in motion. He contributes in the most material degree to the printing of calico, and may therefore, I think, be properly included under the term ‘artificer." Taking all these things together, we can only come to the conclusion that the rural artisan is one who turns out something by way of his product out of his own skill. In the case reported in Punnavanam v. Muthuswami1, the scope of the word ‘artisan’ was considered and this Court came to the conclusion that the instruments of a doctor or surgeon cannot be said to be the tools of an artisan and that a doctor fell outside the classification of artisan because unlike a handicraftsman he did not make things for sale as part of his trade or calling. Applying the same principle to the facts of the present case, a homeopathy doctor cannot be said to be a rural artisan. Hence the plea of the revision petitioner that he is entitled to protection under the Act will have to be negatived. 5. The next contention of the revision-petitioner is that though a sum of Rs. 489 was found to be due to him by the respondent, cost was not awarded to him in his counter-claim. This contention of the revision-petitioner is well-founded and since costs follow the event, the revision-petitioner is entitled to costs in the counter-claim. Hence the civil revision petition is partly allowed and the revision petitioner is entitled to costs in respect of the counter claim and in other respects, the judgment of the Court below is confirmed. There will be no order as to costs in this civil revision petition.