JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for both the parties. The writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 4.9.2008, thereafter restoration application was filed which was allowed on 17.5.2013 and thereafter arguments of learned counsel for both the parties on the merit of the writ petition were heard and judgment was reserved. 2. Atar Singh father of respondent No. 3 since deceased and survived by respondent No. 3 obtained a decree against Nepal Singh father of the petitioners 1,2, and 3 and husband of petitioner No. 4, since deceased and survived by the petitioners. Thereafter, the decree was put in execution in the form of Execution case No. 16 of 1979. Immovable property belonging to Nepal Singh was sold in Execution of the decree and purchased by respondent No. 4, Baleshwar on 6.9.1980 for Rs. 2000/- Nepal Singh filed objections under Section 47 C.P.C. claiming that the property sold was gher used for agricultural purposes and for tethering the cattle and his main source of income was agricultural hence gher was exempted from attachment and sale by virtue of Section 60(1)© C.P.C. The objections were rejected on 7.12.1983 by Munsif Hawali, Meerut (objection had been registered as Misc. case No. 132 of 1980 Nepal Singh v. Atar Singh). Against the said order petitioners filed Civil Revision No. 9 of 1984. 8th A.D.J. Meerut, dismissed the revision on 12.1.1990, hence, this writ petition. 3. One of the arguments raised by the decree holder and auction purchaser respondent before the executing Court was that earlier also objections filed by the judgment debtor had been rejected hence second objections were barred by res judicata. Earlier objections were filed in the form of misc. case No. 123 of 1980. Executing Court held that the earlier objections were not under Order 21 Rule 90 C.P.C., hence, subsequent objections under Section 47 C.P.C. were not barred as the scope of both was different. 4. The second point decided by the executing Court was that judgment debtor could not file objections against auction purchaser. 5. The third point decided was regarding the merit of the objections. In this regard the executing Court held that agriculture was not the source of judgment debtor and his main source of income was from political activities and he was a person who stood surety for others after receiving monetary consideration. 5. The third point decided was regarding the merit of the objections. In this regard the executing Court held that agriculture was not the source of judgment debtor and his main source of income was from political activities and he was a person who stood surety for others after receiving monetary consideration. The findings on merit (third point) recorded by the executing Court are utterly without jurisdiction and not based on any evidence. It has not been stated that in what form judgment debtor earned money from his political activities. Merely because a person stood surety in a criminal case in respect of bail of an accused it cannot be said that he received money for the said purpose. There is no finding that how much money was received by the judgment debtor for standing surety. In any case even if while standing surety for an accused in a solitary case some money was received by the judgment debtor, it could not be said to be his main source of income. 6. The view of the trial Court that politics (netagiri) is a regular source of income cannot be accepted by any stretch of imagination. Even if some unscrupulous person joins politics with a view to earn money and realise Commission (dalali) from others for getting their work done, it cannot be treated to be recognised source of income. Politics is not meant for earning money. Illegal source of income cannot be taken into consideration. In any case it was not proved by giving any particular instance that certain amount of money was received by the judgment debtor for getting some one’s work done. 7. Judgement debtor had filed revenue records to show that he possessed agricultural land. The argument of auction purchaser that agricultural land was quite small in area hence it could not be sufficient to meet the expenses was utterly untenable. This is the story of millions of farmers in India that they have got insufficient land and insufficient income there from to meet their expenses. 8. The revisional Court held that objections could earlier be filed under order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. and against attachment of the property in dispute on the ground that it was exempted from attachment under Section 60 C.P.C. and that having not been done, subsequent objections under Section 47 C.P.C. were not maintainable. 8. The revisional Court held that objections could earlier be filed under order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. and against attachment of the property in dispute on the ground that it was exempted from attachment under Section 60 C.P.C. and that having not been done, subsequent objections under Section 47 C.P.C. were not maintainable. The revisional Court held that there was no need to go into the details as to whether the judgment debtor was an agriculturalist or not and whether objections under Section 47 C.P.C. against auction purchaser are maintainable or not. 9. Lower revisional Court did not state that judgment debtor had filed any objection regarding immunity from attachment under Section 60(1)© C.P.C. earlier. In such a situation objection under Section 47 C.P.C. were quite maintainable even after confirmation of sale. Accordingly, both the impugned orders are set aside auction sale is also set aside. 10. However, on 17.5.2013 when arguments were heard and judgment was reserved learned counsel for judgment debtor had agreed to return the purchase money to the auction purchaser alongwith reasonable interest. Petitioners are still in possession of the property in dispute. Auction purchaser respondent No. 4, purchased the property in 1980, 33 years before for Rs. 2000/-. Today the cost of the property in dispute must be more than one lac. Accordingly, it is directed that petitioners shall pay Rs. 25,000/- to the auction purchaser respondent No. 4. The said amount positively be deposited before the executing Court within three months from today for immediate payment to auction purchaser failing which this writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed and in that eventuality possession shall be delivered to respondent No. 4. Writ petition is accordingly, allowed as above.