1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 5123 OF 2007 (Madhukar Shriram Chaurey .v. Smt. Nirmala Wasudeoji Kumre) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri M.B. Agasti, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. 07TH APRIL, 2008. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. By the impugned order, the executing Court reviewed its earlier order below Exh.9 under which the payment of Rs.1,000/- directed to be attached from the salary of the petitioner. The executing Court while disposing of this review application, considered the total amount received by way of salary by the petitioner/ Judgment Debtor. The trial Court also considered the permissible deductions under Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thereafter came to the conclusion that it is just and reasonable to attach the salary of the petitioner/ Judgment Debtor to the extent of Rs.1,500/-. Learned Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the petitioner's salary to the extent of Rs.1,500/- can be attached under the provisions of 2 Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. His contention seems to be that initially the attachment of salary was to the extent of Rs.1,000/- only and by the impugned order, the attachment was increased to the extent of Rs.1,500/-. Such course is not permissible in review. However, in my opinion, the executing Court is entitled to correct inadvertent mistake. This is specially when the attachment to the extent of Rs.1,500/- admittedly does not contravene the provisions of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I do not find any error which enable me to interfere in the petition. The petition is devoid of any merit and hence dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. JUDGE *rrg.