IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2010 / 15TH ASWINA 1932 OP(C).No. 231 of 2010(O) ----------------------------------- OS.410/2008 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, KOCHI .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ K.SASIDHARAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.G.KRISHNAN, QUARTER NO.3-III/17, 7TH CROSS ROAD, THOPPUMPADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. INDIAN BANK, REP. BY BRANCH MANAGER, WILLINGTON ISLAND, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 003. 2. P.E.NIZAR, S/O.IBRAHIM, PERAKALOTH HOUSE, WARD NO.9/107, KUSUMAGIRI, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682 030. 3. THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC MANAGER(E&O),I/C, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC MANAGER(E&O), MATTANCHERRY WARF, COCHIN PORT TRUST, KOCHI. R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.231 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 07th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Respondent No.3 is only an Officer disbursing salary of the petitioner. He has not passed any order which is challenged in this proceeding and hence respondent No.3 is deleted from the array of parties being an unnecessary party. Heard counsel petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. Petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P. No.51 of 2010 in O.S. No.410 of 2008 of the court of learned Munsiff, Kochi. Petitioner, along with respondent No.2 suffered a decree for payment of money. As per version of petitioner he was only a surety of respondent No.2 but made liable to pay the amount as per the decree. In execution his salary to the extent of Rs.2,500/- per month was attached and direction was issued the disbursing Officer (respondent No.3 – deleted from the party array) to send the amount to the court concerned. That order is under challenge in this Original Petition. It is contended by learned counsel that order was passed without notice to the petitioner and that at any rate it is without any material on record that attachment at the O.P(C) No.231 of 2010 -: 2 :- rate of Rs.2,500/- per month is ordered. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 supported the impugned order. 3. Counsel for respondent No.1 asserted that notice under Rule 48 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) was served on petitioner who entered appearance and sought time to make payment but failed to do so. In other words contention that the order was passed without notice to the petitioner is not correct. It is seen that respondent No.1 has produced salary certificate of petitioner in which his basic pay is shown as Rs.8,620/- and even excluding the non- attachable portion under Section 60 of the Code the balance available for attachment is Rs.2,540/- while the amount attached is only Rs.2,500/- per month. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the executing court requiring interference by this Court. Original Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv