Judgment :- The petitioner is a U. P. School Assistant. He was the guarantor for a loan availed by the 5th respondent from the 4th respondent Co-operative Society. Under the particular scheme, the society advanced a loan of Rs. 30,000/- to the 5th respondent (for the purpose of bee keeping) and as there was default, the salary of the petitioner was attached at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per mensem. 2. The contentions of the petitioner are threefold. Firstly, it is argued that there was frustration of contract in so far as the bees maintained by the 5th respondent died in consequence of viral infection and there was hence total failure of the business of the 5th respondent which disabled him from repaying the loan. Secondly, he argued that in the absence of an award obtained under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, the question of attachment does not arise. Thirdly, it is contended that in any event the salary drawn by the petitioner does not enable attachment at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month in view of the provisions under Section 60 of the C.P.C. read with Rule 77 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. 3. The contention regarding frustration and the like cannot be raised in a proceeding of this nature. Such a contention is beyond the scope of an application for attachment from the salary where the guarantor has specifically agreed that in case of failure on the part of the principal debtor to pay off the instalments, he would be liable jointly and severally. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision in Majoor Sahkari Bank v. Jasmat Gopal, 1966 AIR(Gujarat) 67, wherein it is found that in the absence of an adjudication, attachment cannot be ordered. The said decision is based on the provisions in the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act and has no application to the facts of the present case. In view of the existence of Article 89(3) of the Kerala Financial Code where specific provision is made for execution of agreement between a Government servant and the society providing that dues in respect of transaction can be deducted from the salary or wages payable to him by the employer and as the petitioner has no case that he had not executed any such agreement in respect of the transaction, the said contention also fails. 5. 5. With regard to the contention that the attachment is excessive, the learned Counsel for the respondents pointed out that the total salary of the petitioner is Rs. 5712/-. Out of this the first Rs. 400/- is to be excluded and out of the remaining only 1/3 is attachable. It can thus be seen that the attachable portion exceeds Rs. 1000/-. 6. Petitioner has a case that there are existing deductions from the salary amounting to Rs. 2211/- and hence that portion has to be excluded while calculating the attachable portion. This contention also has to fail because it is seen that deduction of Rs. 1233/- is towards repayment of temporary advance taken from General Provident Fund. This amount is not exempt and cannot be excluded. Further, even if we proceed on the basis that the salary is only Rs. 3501/- which he admittedly receives in cash after all deductions the attachable portion therefrom is not below Rs. 1000/-. Only Rs. 1000/- per mensem has been directed to be attached as per the impugned order. This is legally valid and well justified. In these circumstances, the contentions of the petitioner fail. The Original Petition is dismissed accordingly. Petition dismissed.