ORDER This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner who was the second defendant in A.R.c. No. 128 of 1996 in E.P. No. 89 of 2001. 2. The respondent herein filed EP for realisation of Rs.55,818.60 with future interest and cost from the petitioner and one Alex, defendants 2 and 4 in A.R.C. No. 122 of 1996, before the learned Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram. Execution Petition was filed for attachment of the petitioner's salary. An order of attachment was passed oh 18.2.2002 ordering Rs. 1,680/- to be attached from the petitioner's salary every month. According to the petitioner, the said attachment continued for 26 months. On completion of 24 months of attachment, the petitioner filed E.A. No. 98 of 2004 in E.P. No. 89 of 2001 in A.R.C. No. 122 of 1996 under Section 60 of CPC, contending that if an order of attachment of salary was passed in execution o£ the decree and the said attachment continued for a total period of 24 months, such attachment shall be exempted, from further attachment in execution of the said decree as per Section 60(i) of CPC. The said application was dismissed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram on 17.6.2004 with a further direction to recover the balance amount of Rs. 1,389/- which is recoverable for a further period of 24 months. The said Order is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition on the ground that the learned District Munsif has erred in not applying proviso to Section 60(i) of CPC and erroneously dismissed the Application filed in E.P. No. 89 of 2001. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon Section 60(i) of CPC, particularly, proviso to 60(i), contended that if attachment of salary is ordered in execution of the decree and the said attachment continued for a total period of 24 months be exempt from attachment in execution of that decree and further argued that in view of the above statutory provision, the order of attachment passed in E.A. No. 98 of 2004 is unsustainable. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also cited a Judgment of the Calcutta High Court in AIR 1983 Cal 45 . 5. The respondent, even though was served as early as on 3.3.2005, has not chosen to appear, either in person or through counsel. 6. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also cited a Judgment of the Calcutta High Court in AIR 1983 Cal 45 . 5. The respondent, even though was served as early as on 3.3.2005, has not chosen to appear, either in person or through counsel. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of CPC provision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court. 7. It is not in dispute that the Order of attachment was passed against the petitioner to recover a sum of Rs. 1,680/- per month on 18.2.2002 and the said sum was recovered from the petitioner's salary as per the Order of attachment for 26 months, since the petitioner's salary is attached for more than 24 months, he filed E.A. No. 98 of 2004 on the ground that as per Section 60(1) of CPC, the attachment of the petitioner's salary having been made for more than 24 months, the further attachment of salary has to be exempted. Section 60(i) of CPC.reads as follows:- "Salary to the extent of the first (one thousand rupees) and two-thirds of the remainder) in execution of any decree other than a decree for maintenance: [provided that where any part of such portion of the salary as is liable to attachment has been under attachment, whether continuously or intermittently, for a total period of twenty-four months, such portion shall be exempt from attachment until the expiry of a further period of 12 months, and, where such attachment has been made in execution of one and the same decree, shall, after the attachment has continued for a total period of twenty-four months, be finally exempt from attachment in execution of that decree]". The learned Judge committed an error in not considering the said provision and dismissed the Execution Application merely on the ground that there is balance amount recoverable from the petitioner. 8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, after expiry of 24 months of attachment of salary, further attachment cannot be continued, as there is a statutory bar for continuance of further attachment of salary while executing the decree. The Calcutta High Court has also taken a view that unless such a view taken, the proviso mentioned in Section 60(i) of CPC will be rendered meaningless. 9. The Calcutta High Court has also taken a view that unless such a view taken, the proviso mentioned in Section 60(i) of CPC will be rendered meaningless. 9. A similar issue was considered by a Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the decision in AIR 1999 Bom 424 , wherein in paragraph 12, it is held as follows- "We would like to point out that Section 60, as it stood at the time of coming into force of the said Rules, had a similar provision, which provided that attachment beyond 24 installments was not permissible in one and the same decree and after 24 months, the salary shall be exempted from the attachment in execution of that decree". 10. In the light of the above statutory bar as well as decisions above cited and having regard to the fact that the salary of the petitioner was attached for over 24 months already for the realisation of a same decree passed in A.R.C. No. 122 of 1996, the order passed in E.A. No. 98 of 2004 in E.P. No. 89 of 2001 in A.R.C. No. 122 of 1996, dated 17.6.2004 is unsustainable and the same is set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected C.M.P is closed. No costs. Petition allowed.