JUDGMENT Kiran Anand Lall, J. - This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.3.1984 of the Additional District Judge, Jind, vide which he set aside the judgment and decree dated 21.8.1981 passed by Shri C.R. Goel, Sub-Judge, Jind and dismissed the suit. 2. In nut-shell, the facts of the case are that the Central Bank of India, respondent No. 1, moved an application under Section 8(1) of the Haryana Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks), Act, 1973 (to be referred as the Act) before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Jind, for recovery of amount due from the appellant (plaintiff). Since the Sub- Divisional Officer (Civil) had no authority to deal with the application, he forwarded the same to the office of the Collector. The Collector, vide order dated 17.9.1979, ordered the recovery of amount due from the appellant, as arrears of land revenue. The appellant challenged the order of the Collector by filing the present suit for permanent injunction, pleading that he had not taken any loan and as such, nothing was due from him; that Collector had no jurisdiction to order the recovery as arrears of land revenue; that the application was not properly presented before the Collector as it had been received by him from the Sub-Divisional Officer (C) who had no jurisdiction to do so, and that the application was time barred. 3. The respondent-bank pleaded in the written statement that the appellant is an agriculturist and he had taken loan for installation of Gobar Gas Plant i.e. for agricultural purpose; that no prejudice had been caused to the appellant by the receipt of application in the office of Collector from the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer (C); and that the application was within time as the loan was advanced in instalments and the repayment was also to be made in instalments. The last instalment of loan was given to the appellant on 6.1.1976 and first instalment of the re-payment of loan was to fall due on 6.1.1977. 4. The trial Court framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the order dated 17.9.1979 of the Collector, Jind is void ab initio, without jurisdiction and is not binding on the plaintiff on the ground alleged in para 3 of the plaint ? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction prayed for ? 3. 4. The trial Court framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the order dated 17.9.1979 of the Collector, Jind is void ab initio, without jurisdiction and is not binding on the plaintiff on the ground alleged in para 3 of the plaint ? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction prayed for ? 3. Whether the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit ? 4. Whether the order of the revenue court has become final and binding on the plaintiff, if so, to what effect ? 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from challenging the validity of the impugned order in the civil Court ? 6. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties ? 7. Whether the court at Jind has no jurisdiction to try this suit ? 8. Relief. 5. The trial Court dealt with issue Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 together and held that the appellant was not proved to be an agriculturist, that loan was not given for agriculture purposes and that the claim of the respondent-bank was barred by time also. Issue No. 5 was also decided in favour of the appellant as it was held that civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. Findings in respect of issue Nos. 6 and 7 were also recorded in favour of the appellant. The suit was, ultimately, decreed, restraining the respondent-bank from recovering the amount in question. The judgment was challenged in appeal. The first appellate Court called for the report of trial Court on the following two points, after the respondent-bank amended the written statement in appeal :- 1. Whether plaintiff is an agriculturist ? 2. Whether the loan given was for agricultural purposes ? 6. The trial Court recorded findings in respect of both the above points in favour of the respondent-bank and submitted its report dated 5.3.1983. The first appellate Court, thereafter, held that the disputed amount was due from the appellant and that the claim of respondent-bank before the Collector was filed within three years from the date the amount became due and as such it was within time. The report of the trial Court on both the points was also found to be correct and it was held that the appellant was agriculturist and the loan had been advanced for an agricultural purpose. The report of the trial Court on both the points was also found to be correct and it was held that the appellant was agriculturist and the loan had been advanced for an agricultural purpose. Accordingly, appeal was accepted, verdict of trial Court was set aside and the suit was dismissed. 7. The appellant, thereafter, came up in second appeal to this Court, challenging the judgment of the first appellate Court on several grounds. However, when the appeal was taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel representing the appellant confined his arguments only with regard to his challenge to the correctness of the finding of the first appellate Court with regard to the loan having been given for agricultural purpose. The fact that the avocation of the appellant is agriculture and he is an agriculturist within the meaning of Section 2(v) of the Act was not disputed. But, at the same time, he pleaded that the loan was not given for agricultural purpose. According to him, the loan had been given for installation of Gobar Gas Plant and it was wrongly held by the first appellate Court that it was given for agricultural purpose. In this connection, it would be useful to reproduce the definition of "agriculture" and "agricultural purpose" as given in Section 2(a) of the Act. This definition reads as under :- "agriculture" and "agricultural purpose" shall include making land fit for cultivation, cultivation of land, improvement of land including development of sources of irrigation, raising, protecting and harvesting of crops, horticulture, forestry, planting and farming, cattle breeding, animal husbandry, dairy farming, seed farming, pisciculture, agriculture, sericulture, piggery, poultry farming and such other activities as are generally carried on by agriculturists, dairy farmers, cattle breeders, poultry farmers and other categories of persons engaged in similar activities including marketing of agricultural products, their storage and transport and the acquisition of implements and machinery in connection with any such activity." 8. According to the learned counsel, the loan had been given for installation of a Gobar Gas Plant. The purpose of installing such plant, he added, is to obtain bio-gas and not to produce manure. The manure produced by the plant is, according to him, a secondary thing, and as such, advancement of loan for installation of gobar gas plant cannot be said to be for an agricultural purpose. Well, I do not find any merit in this connection. The manure produced by the plant is, according to him, a secondary thing, and as such, advancement of loan for installation of gobar gas plant cannot be said to be for an agricultural purpose. Well, I do not find any merit in this connection. The definition of word "agriculture" and "agricultural purpose", as given above, is not exhaustive but is inclusive as it states that besides the other named purposes, the same would also include "such other activities as are generally carried on by agriculturists, dairy farmers, cattle breeders....." In so far as Gobar Gas Plant is concerned, it is a plant generally installed by agriculturists or cattle breeders not only to obtain bio-gas but also to get the good quality of manure for their fields. As such, loan given for the purpose of installation of Gobar Gas Plant would surety be a loan for an agricultural purpose. That being so, the finding on point No. 2 recorded by the learned First Appellate Court is correct and, is, therefore, upheld. No other point was argued by the learned counsel. There is, thus, no merit in the appeal and the same shall stand dismissed. Appeal dismissed.