IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4318 of 2010 BETWEEN Challa Rabinson. ... PETITIONER AND Singamala Venkata Ramana. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent: MR. CH. JANARDHAN REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: The judgment debtor in EP.No.36 of 2010 in O.S.No.6 of 2009 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Nandalur, filed the present civil revision petition aggrieved by the order dated 25.08.2010 passed therein by the executing Court directing attachment of his salary to the extent of Rs.5,000/- per month for a period of 19 months and Rs.5,240/- for the 20th month. 2. The decree holder in O.S.No.6 of 2009 filed E.P.No.36 of 2010 for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,00,240/- pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2010 passed therein. The judgment debtor contested the execution petition stating that he is a salaried employee with a meager salary, of which Rs.2,000/- per month was already under Court attachment, and sought dismissal of the execution petition. 3. The judgment debtor examined himself as R.W.1 and the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, as R.W.2, in evidence of his having taken a loan from the said bank. The decree holder did not adduce any evidence. The executing Court, by order dated 25.08.2010, took into account the fact that the judgment debtor’s salary certificate indicated his monthly gross salary as Rs.18,031/- and calculated the moiety available after deductions to be Rs.5,796/-. It accordingly directed attachment of Rs.5,000/- per month from the judgment debtor’s salary for the initial 19 months and a sum of Rs.5,240/- for the 20th month. 4. Heard Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtor and Sri Ch. Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder. 5. The order passed by the executing Court does not reflect deduction of the amount already under attachment from the judgment debtor’s salary. Section 60(1)(i) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, states to the effect that the salary to the extent of the first one thousand rupees and two-thirds of the remainder shall be exempt from attachment. Therefore, a sum of Rs.12,332/-, out of the judgment debtor’s salary of Rs.18,031/- would be exempt from attachment. That would leave a sum of Rs.5,700/-, of which Rs.2,000/- is already under attachment. The balance available for attachment would therefore be Rs.3,700/- per month and not Rs.5,796/- as calculated by the executing Court. 6. The order dated 25.08.2010 passed by the executing Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Nandalur in E.P.No.36 of 2010 in O.S.No.6 of 2009 shall accordingly stand modified directing the attachment of the salary of the judgment debtor to the tune of Rs.3,700/- per month for 24 months in all. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J March 8, 2011 DSK