Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 371 (AP)

M. Prabhudas v. Usirikayala Venkata Ramana

2011-04-25

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2011
Judgment CRP No.707 of 2011: Petition under Section 115 of C.P.C., aggrieved by the Order dated 31/01/2011 in E.P.No.859/2010 in OS.No.5/2007 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, at Nandyal. CRP.No.749 of 2011: Petition under Section 115 of C.P.C., aggrieved by the Order dated 31/01/2011 in E.P.No.860/2010 in OS No.6/2007 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, at Nandyal.) These two revisions are connected with each other. Hence, they are being disposed of through a common order. The petitioners borrowed amounts from the 1st respondent. Since the petitioners did not repay the same, the 1st respondent filed O.S.Nos.5 and 6 of 2007 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, for recovery of the same. The suits were decreed. The 1st respondent filed E.P.Nos.859 and 860 of 2010 for execution of the decree by causing attachment of arrears of salary of the petitioners. The petitioners opposed the execution petitions by stating that on earlier occasions, the 1st respondent filed E.P.Nos.280 and 281 of 2007, respectively, and a sum of Rs.40,296/-, each, by attaching the salary for a period of 24 months and by operation of Section 60(1)(i) of C.P.C., any further attachment is prohibited. The Executing Court rejected the objection raised by the petitioners and allowed the execution petitions, through separate orders, dated 31.01.2011. Hence, these two revisions. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. This is a matter of record that the decrees against the petitioners became final and that on earlier occasion, part of the amounts covered by the decrees were recovered by causing attachments in E.P.Nos.280 and 281 of 2007. Section 60(1)(i) of C.P.C. reads as under: “(i) 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. Section 60(1)(i) of C.P.C. reads as under: “(i) 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 twelve 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 proviso makes it clear that once the salary of an employee was subjected to attachment for a period of 24 months, no further attachment can be made, in respect of that very decree, though attachment in respect of other decrees can be made after expiry of one year. Since the 1st respondent has already availed the benefit of attachment of the decree for a period of two years, in each case, he is not entitled to seek any further attachment of the salary. The order is sought to be sustained by stating that what is proposed to be attached is arrears of salary. That hardly makes any difference, in the context of extending the benefit under Section 60(1)(i) of C.P.C. Whether it is salary from month to month or, it is the amount accumulated as arrears of salary, the prohibition contained under proviso to Section 60(1)(i) of C.P.C. operates. This, however, does not mean that a decree-holder is not entitled to take other steps against the judgment-debtor. The prohibition is only against the salary in the hands of the employer. If the judgment-debtor has any other properties, they can be proceeded against, or recourse can be taken to Rules 37 and 38 of Order XXI C.P.C. Hence, the revisions are allowed and the orders under revision are set aside. It is left open to the 1st respondent/decree-holder to initiate steps under the other provisions of law against the petitioners for recovery of the balance of the decretal amount. There shall be no order as costs.