THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.4498 of 2009 ORDER: The respondents 1 and 2 herein filed O.S.No.111 of 2006 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Nandalur, against the petitioner and 3rd respondent, for recovery of certain amount. The suit was decreed, and after the decree became final, they filed E.P.No.42 of 2008. The attachment of the salary of the petitioner was prayed for. The petitioner opposed the application. Through its order dated 20-08-2009, the Executing Court directed attachment of the salary of the petitioner, to the extent of Rs.4,200/- per month, for a period of 24 months, or till the realization of the E.P., amount, whichever is earlier. The same is challenged in this C.R.P. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the salary of the petitioner was already attached in E.P.Nos.35 of 2007 in O.S.No.942 of 2005; 558 of 2008 in O.S.No.154 of 2007, and 493 of 2007 in O.S.No.1130 of 2005. He contends that the cumulative effect of all these attachments would make any further attachment untenable, under Section 60 of the C.P.C. The petitioner appears to be a habitual and indiscriminate borrower and defaulter. Obviously, on account of the fact that he did not dispute borrowing of amount from the respondents 1 and 2, O.S.No.111 of 2006 was decreed, and the petitioner did not choose to prefer an appeal. Section 60 of the C.P.C. stipulates certain limits, in the context of attachment of salary. The first one thousand of the salary and two- thirds of the remainder is kept outside the scope of attachment. The pay slip of the petitioner discloses that the salary is Rs.20,000/-, and even if the first one thousand and two-third of the remainder is excluded, attachment can be effected to the extent of Rs.6,300/-. The attachment in E.P.No.35 of 2007 ceases with February, 2009. By August, 2009, attachments were in force in E.P.Nos.493 of 2007 and 558 of 2008, roughly for Rs.2,000/-. Therefore, the attachment ordered by the Executing Court, in the instant case, cannot be said to be in violation of Section 60 of the C.P.C. The C.R.P is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.22-09-2009. KO There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt. -07-2009. Note: L.R copy to be marked. (B/O) KO*