THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2072 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC assailing the order, dated 29-03-2010, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, in O.E.P.No.64 of 2009 in O.S.No.135 of 2001. The petitioner suffered a decree for a sum of Rs.93,587/- in the said suit. The respondent is the decree holder. The respondent filed O.E.P.No.64 of 2009 in O.S.No.135 of 2001 stating that the said suit was decreed on 12- 08-2002, that the salary of the petitioner was already attached to an extent of Rs.6,000/- per month and still there remains some amount, which is liable to be attached for recovery, towards satisfaction of the decretal amount. The petitioner herein filed counter in the said O.E.P. stating that his salary to a tune of Rs.6,000/- was already attached in O.E.P.No.41 of 2009 in O.S.No.74 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle. Under Section 60 (1) of CPC, the first Rs.1,000/- and remaining 2/3rd of the salary cannot be attached in execution of a decree. In the instant case, 1/3rd amount has already been attached in O.E.P.No.41 of 2009 and therefore, no further amount is available for attachment under Section 60 (1) of CPC. The court below, after hearing both sides, held that gross salary of the petitioner is Rs.17,635/- and after permissible deductions of DA, HRA, GPF, APGLI, GIS and PT amounting to Rs.7,687/-, remaining amount is Rs.9,948/-, out of which, if first Rs.1,000/- is deducted, the balance would be Rs.8,948/-. As an amount of Rs.6,000/- was already under attachment, still remains an amount of Rs.2,948/-. If 2/3rd of Rs.2,948/- is deducted, 1/3rd is available for attachment i.e., Rs.982/-. The said amount of Rs.982/- alone is attached while issuing pro-note. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on a judgment of this Court in C.R.P.No.1567 of 2008, dated 28-11-2008, wherein this Court held that after deducting permissible deductions, the first Rs.1,000/- and 2/3rd amount cannot be attached and the remaining 1/3rd alone can be attached. In the instant case, the principle in the aforesaid judgment has been followed and, therefore, it cannot be said that the court below has not followed either Section 60 (1) of CPC or the principle in the aforesaid judgment. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any infirmity legal or otherwise in the impugned order, so as to call for interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs. __________ 03-09-2010 Prv