Pandrang Row, J.
1. This is an appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge of Nellore attaching certain agricultural produce before judgment.
2. The only point urged in this appeal by the appellants whose crop was so attached is that the attachment is in contravention of the provisions of Order 38, Rule 12, Civil Procedure Code, which is to the following effect:
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 or production of such produce.
3. It is contended by the appellants that they are agriculturists and that the attachment of agricultural produce which was in their possession was opposed to the provisions of Order 38, Rule 12, Civil Procedure Code. This particular question does not appear to have been argued before the Court below and in any case, the order appealed from contains no reference to it. The point is no doubt raised in, the affidavits filed in the Court below. From these affidavits, I find it impossible to say that the appellants have succeeded in establishing their claim to be agriculturists. The same word is found in Sections 60 and 61 of the Civil Procedure Code and the word 'agriculturist' found therein has been interpreted by a recent Full Bench of this Court as meaning a tiller of the soil who is unable to maintain himself otherwise. Certainly, if this interpretation is applied to the appellants, they cannot be deemed to be agriculturists, because they possess large extents of land most of which is cultivated by tenants. It is, however, argued that the word 'agriculturist' found in Order 38, Rule 12 must be interpreted in a sense different from the sense in which it is to be understood in Sections 60 and 61 of the Code. I do not think there is any justification for making this difference in interpreting the same word found in different parts of the Code. It may be that certain words found in Section 60 were relied upon for the purpose of determining the meaning of the term 'agriculturist' but that does not mean that the same word 'agriculturist' found in Order 38, Rule 12 must mean something different from the 'agriculturist' referred to in Sections 60 and 61. I am of opinion that the word must be interpreted in the same way throughout and it follows therefore the appeal here must fail. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.