Jeevan Reddy, J.
1. The Plaintiff-appellant, having filed the suit, applied for attachment before judgment of paddy stored in the house of the first defendant. It was ordered, against which an appeal was preferred. The learned single Judge held that, by virtue of O.XXXVII. R.12 of the Civil P.C. 'agricultural produce' cannot be attached before judgment at all. Order XXXVII. R.12 CPC reads as follows:-
'Agricultural produce not attachable before judgment:- Nothing in this order shall be deemed to authorise the plaintiff to apply for the attachment of any agricultural produce in the possession of an agriculturist, or to empower the Court to order the attachment of production of such produce.'
It is evident from a reading of the Rule that there is a total ban upon attachment before judgment of agricultural produce. In this case, the property attached is paddy, which is undoubtedly, an agricultural produce. Therefore, the ban operates. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, relied upon a decision of a learned single judge of the Rajasthan High Court in Bhabhoot Singh v. Ghanshyam, . There, the learned Judge held that the term 'agricultural produce' as used in the Code of Civil Procedure' as used in the Code of Civil Procedure, is confined to 'growing crop'; standing on the land on which it has grown or cut crop lying on the thrashing flour or fodder-stock'. He further held that, once the grain is separated from the chaff, it ceases to remain 'agricultural produce' and there is no prohibition against its attachment under R.12 of O.XXXVIII CPC. On the basis of the above observation, it is argued that once paddy is removed from the land or thrashing floor, it ceases to be an agricultural produce. We are unable to appreciate this argument. Agricultural produce is agricultural produce whether it is stocked on the thrashing floor or stored in a house or godown.
2. So far as the present case is concerned, what is attached is paddy. It is undoubtedly an 'Agricultural produce'. If so, it cannot be attached by virtue of R.12 of O.XXXVII, CPC. This is the view taken by a learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court in Vasu v.Narayanan : AIR1962Ker261 . The learned Judge has rightly pointed out that, while the prohibition under Ss.60 and 61 is partial, the prohibition under O.XXXVII R.12 CPC is complete. We agree with him.
3. For the above reasons, the LPA fails and is dismissed. No costs.
4. Appeal dismissed.