THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.310 of 2010 Dated:- 11th August, 2010 Between:- Nookala Venkata Lakshmi …Petitioner AND Shaik Moinuddin and another …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.310 of 2010 ORDER:- The petitioner herein is the decree holder in O.S.No.191 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem. The suit was decreed on 13.07.2009. Subsequently, she filed E.P.No.324 of 2009 before the same Court and by order dated 05.08.2009, the salary of the first respondent herein was attached. Then the first respondent herein filed I.A.No.725 of 2009 under Section 60, Order XXI Rule-48(2) read with Section 151 C.P.C. for raising the attachment order passed in E.P.No.324 of 2009 till the clearance of the earlier attachment order passed in E.P.No.15 of 2009 dated 25.03.2009. The Court below, on 02.12.2009, passed orders that the attachment order dated 01.09.2009 passed in E.P.No.324 of 2009 cannot be given effect and that the first respondent herein is entitled for raising the attachment order dated 01.09.2009 issued in E.P.No.324 of 2009 till the clearance of the earlier attachment order passed in E.P.No.15 of 2009. Aggrieved by the same, the decree holder in the Court below is before this Court as petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel on record. 3. The only submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner herein / decree-holder is that the impugned order is not in accordance with Sub-clause 1(k) and 5 of Clause 1 of Section 60 of C.P.C. and also not in consonance with Order 48 Rule 21 C.P.C. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the total amount due in E.P.No.15 of 2009 is Rs.1.40 lakhs and that for clearing the entire amount in that E.P., a minimum period of ten years may be required and that the impugned order is not in consonance with the above referred provisions of C.P.C. 4. It has to be seen that the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, though observed that the attachment of salary in E.P.NO.15 of 2009 was for 24 months and is still continuing, but however observed that the Judgment Debtor is entitled for raising of the attachment warrant issued in E.P.No.324 of 2009 till the clearance of attachment order passed in E.P.No.15 of 2009. 5. A cursory reading of the impugned order makes it clear that the impugned order is not in consonance with Clause 1 of Section 60 of C.P.C. In the above circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned judgment of the Court below. The matter is remanded back to the Court below with a direction to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after considering the relevant provisions applicable to the case. No costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR August 11, 2010 Bvv