(2015) 410 KLW 219

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

O.P.(C). No.1365 of 2013

Dated this the 20th day of May, 2015

AGAINST THE ORDER IN E.P.No.71/2011 IN OS 107/2005 of SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA DATED 11.02.2013 

PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER/PLAINTIFF

SASI

BY ADV. SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN IYER 

RESPONDENT/JUDGMENT DEBTOR/DEFENDANT

BINDU S.J.GEORGE

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.KESAVANKUTTY

J U D G M E N T 

Initially there was an attachment of the salary of the judgment-debtor for a period of 24 months. When subsequently, further attachment was sought for from the salary, it seems that the court below has rightly declined to do so within the meaning of the proviso to Section 60 (i) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken a stand that what is exempted from attachment through the said proviso is “such portion” of the salary that was attached, a reading of the provision clearly shows that the provision regarding “such portion” is meant only when the execution of another decree is sought for. If it is the very same decree, it is finally exempt from attachment. 

Without prejudice to the right of the decree-holder to have recourse to the provisions under Order XXI Rule 37 CPC, this Original Petition (Civil) is dismissed.