JUDGMENT
Madan Mohan Prasad, JJ.
1. This appeal is by the judgment-debtor.
2. It appears that the respondent obtained a money decree, in execution of which he sought to attach different articles, including 50 pairs of dhotis and 100 pairs of saris. The judgment-debtor took an objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the “Code” that these items constituted “wearing apparel” and were, therefore, exempt from attachment under Section 60 of the Code. The learned Munsif exempted some articles other than these. On appeal the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal with an observation that the Nazir or the peon will not attach any used wearing apparel. Hence the Present appeal.
3. The only point raised by learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the fifty pairs of dhotis and 100 pairs of saris are wearing apparel within the meaning of the term as used in Section 60 of the Code and ought to have been exempted. There is force in this contention.
4. It appears that the learned District Judge made the following observation:
“Moreover, from the list of the articles given by the decree-holder it is clear that he does not want any wearing apparels is to be attached. He has included in the list 50 pairs of dhotis and 100 pairs of saris, from which it is clear that he
wants new dhotis and saris to be attached and not used ones.”
On the assumption that wearing apparel must be used apparel, the Court below dismissed the appeal making the observation mentioned above with a view to avoid the possibility of the Nazir or the peon attaching used apparel. In my view, the court below has given a wrong interpretation of the term “wearing apparel.”
“Wearing apparel” is said to mean, according to Chambers’s dictionary, “dress”. According to Webster’s dictionary, “wearing” means “intended for wearing” and “apparel” means “personal attire or clothing.” Thus it is quite obvious that a dress or personal clothing intended for wearing must be deemed to be wearing apparel. To import into the expression the consideration of “used” or “un-used” is obviously unwarranted. If a new apparel is kept for use at a future date, it cannot be said to be anything but a wearing apparel. In my view, whether it has been used or not, it continues to be wearing apparel as long as it is not converted into something else. Dhotis and Saris are obviously wearing apparel. They do not become so only if they are used before nor do they become anything else because they have not been used so far. If, however, dhotis and Saris are cut into several pieces and are intended for any use other than wearing, surely they would cease to be personal attire or personal clothing.
5. In the present case, it is said that there is no evidence that these clothings which the decree-holder seeks to attach were meant for any use other than wearing. The Courts below do not say that they were meant for any other Purpose. In such circumstances, the nature of the property must be determined by what they are at the present moment. Bv way of caution. I may add that it has been said that there is no evidence that the judgment-debtor is a shop-keeper and keeps cloths for sale etc. In such a situation, the Courts below had no option but to exempt the items aforesaid and not to allow the decree-holder to proceed against them.
6. In the result, the orders of the Courts below in this respect are set aside and they are directed to exempt the aforesaid clothings under Section 60 of the Code. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. In view of the fact that there is no appearance on behalf of the decree-holder, there will be no order as to costs.
