IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5454 of 2010 BETWEEN Yeddula Jagan Mohan Reddy. ... PETITIONER AND Yeddula Venkata Rami Reddy. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. N. PARAMESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: MR. C. VAMSI KRISHNA The Court made the following: ORDER: This revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the order made in EP.No.49 of 2010 in O.S.No.35 of 2007 dated 19.10.2010 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Pulivendula, Kadapa District. 2. Petitioner is the decree holder and respondent is the judgment debtor. Petitioner laid the suit in O.S.No.35 of 2007 for recovery of money and the same was decreed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed EP for an amount of Rs.73,299/- and also attachment of the salary. The respondent/judgment debtor was working as Work Inspector, PBC, Sub- Division II, Muddanur Road, Pulivendula Town & Mandal, Kadapa District and his gross salary was Rs.20,848/-, out of which the following regular deductions were effected : GPF – Rs.1,500/-; GIS – Rs.30/-; APGLI – Rs.600/- and PT – Rs.200/- totaling to Rs.2,330/-. Apart from the above, the non-Governmental deductions effected were: RGB Loan – Rs.3000/- and Court attachment of Rs.3,060/- vide EP.No.52 of 2008 in O.S.No.49 of 2004 totaling to Rs.6,060/-. Thus, the total deductions effected were to the tune of Rs.8,390/- and after deductions, the respondent was getting Rs.12,458/- towards his net salary. However, the EP filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Court below on the ground that the salary particulars of the judgment debtor received in the Court on 24.09.2010 disclosed that there is already an attachment of salary by the Senior Civil Judge’s court, Kakinada for an amount of Rs.3,060/-. Therefore, the Court below was of the opinion that since an attachment has already been in existence, further attachment is not maintainable. 3. The approach of the Court below appears to be erroneous. Under Section 60(1)(i) CPC the properties, which shall not be attached are enumerated as under: "60. Property liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree. – (1) (i) salary to the extent of the first one thousand rupees and two- thirds of the remainder in execution of any decree other than a decree for maintenance: Provided that where any part of such portion of the salary as is liable to attachment has been under attachment, whether continuously or intermittently, for a total period of twenty–four months, such portion shall be exempt from attachment until the expiry of a further period of twelve months, and, where such attachment has been made in execution of one and the same decree, shall, after attachment has continued for a total period of twenty-four months, be finally exempt from attachment in execution of that decree.” 4. From the above it is clear that the first one thousand rupees and two- thirds of the remaining salary are not liable to be attached. The Court below has not gone into the details as to whether Government deductions can be taken into consideration for the purpose of Section 60 CPC and whether after excluding the first one thousand rupees and two- thirds of the remaining salary, there is any other amount deductible for the purpose of calculation as required under Section 60 CPC. The Court below has not given any detailed finding. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that the respondent is ready to pay Rs.2,000/- per month. Under those circumstances, the order made by the Court below is set aside and the EP is accordingly ordered for attachment of Rs.2,000/- every month from the salary of the respondent and may be credited to the EP every month. The civil revision petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ C.V. RAMULU, J February 1, 2011 DSK