IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2010 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1932 CRP.No. 456 of 2010() --------------------- EP NO.1476/2007 IN OS.990/2004 of II ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): 2BD JUDGMENT DEBTOR ---------------------------------------- K.NALINAKSHAN,S/O.P.RAMAN MENON, PATTATHIL,MANAKKODY VILLAGE/DESOM, THRISSUR,NOW RESIDING AT G-16,CAPITAL HOMES, PUSHPAGIRI,POONKUNNAM.P.O,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): DECREE HOLDER & IST & 3RD JUDGMENT DEBTOR -------------------------------------------------------- 1. VIKAS FUNDS & KURIES (P)LTD, PUTHENPEEDIKA.P.O,THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 642, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. V.P.RAMESH,S/O.VATHIYATH PARAMESWARAN, MANAKKODY.P.O,THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 017. 3. C.K.SUNDARAN,S/O.KUNJAPPAN, CHEMBAKATH,VELUTHUR,ARIMBOOR.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 620. ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN FOR R1 SRI.P.V.BALAKRISHNAN FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.456 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2010. ORDER Judgment debtor No.2 in E.P.No.1476 of 2007 in O.S.No.990 of 2004 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff-II, Thrissur is the petitioner before me challenging the order dated July 27, 2010 attaching salary of petitioner at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month for a period of 24 months. While admitting the revision this Court had granted interim stay of attachment of salary to the extent of Rs.2,000/- per month out of the sum of Rs.3,000/- per month ordered to be attached. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the attachment is illegal since amounts liable to be deducted under Sub-sections (i), (k), (ka) and (kb) of Section 60(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) have not been taken into account by the executing court. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/decree holder contends that there is nothing illegal in the order under challenge and no interference is required. 2. It is not disputed that petitioner is a salaried employee. Details of his salary are given in the impugned order which is not under challenge. Executing court directed that salary at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month be attached for a period of 24 months or till the decree is satisfied, whichever is earlier. Contention advanced is that exemptions under Sub-sections (i), (k), (ka) and (kb) of Section 60(1) of the Code have not been taken into account. CRP No.456/2010 2 3. So far as exemption under Sub-section (k) and (ka) of Section 60 of the Code is concerned, argument is that the amounts liable to be deposited in the provident fund are exempted from attachment. I am afraid, that argument cannot be sustained since under the said provisions what is exempted is deposits and other sums in or derived from the funds referred to therein. Deposits “into“ such funds is not exempted from attachment. Sub-section (kb) also has no application since what is exempted is money payable under a policy of insurance and not moneys payable towards such policy. 4. What remained is the contention that Section 60(i) of the Code is violated. It is not disputed that as against petitioner and in execution of another decree there was attachment of salary to the tune of Rs.2,000/- per month and that attachment came to an end in May, 2010. The argument is that out of the salary of Rs.3,000/- per month attached by the executing court in the present case the said sum of Rs.2,000/- per month has to be excluded for a period of 12 months. That argument also is unsustainable since what is to be deducted is the amount which was under attachment in the former decree from the total salary of petitioner. Hence the order of executing court is to be clarified to the extent that in deciding the attachable portion of salary of petitioner, the sum of Rs.2,000/- which was under attachment in the former decree has to be excluded from the total salary of petitioner for a period of 12 months from May, 2010. CRP No.456/2010 3 5. Learned counsel for petitioner requested six months' time may be granted to pay the amount in installments. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/decree holder is not opposing that request of petitioner. Hence I am inclined to grant six months' time to petitioner for payment of amount due under the decree. During that time attachment will stand in abeyance. Resultantly this revision is disposed of with the clarification made in paragraph No.4 as to exclusion of the sum of Rs.2,000/-: i. Petitioner is granted six months' time to discharge the liability under the decree. ii. During the said period of six months, the order of attachment will stand in abeyance subject to the following conditions: (a) Petitioner shall pay the amount due under the decree in six equal monthly installments beginning from 01.12.2010. The amount shall be deposited in the executing court on or before 5th of every month. It is directed that by the last installment entire amount due under the decree shall be deposited. CRP No.456/2010 4 (b) It is directed that if the entire amount is not paid within the time aforesaid or there is any two defaults in payment of the installments, the attachment will revive subject to the clarification made in paragraph No.4, above. I.A.No.2169 of 2010 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks