IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2011 / 31ST ASHADHA 1933 OP(C).NO. 2376 OF 2011(O) --------------------------------------- OS.11/2001 OF SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- A.D.MARY SHEELA, AGED 45 YEARS, SUPERINTENDENT DISTRICT FORUM SECTION, GOVT. PRESS, MAMANTHALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.SANGEETHA LAKSHMANA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. V.M.SAJITHA, RESIDING AT LALITHA BHAVAN, IYTHI, PARANDODE ROAD, ARYANAD VILLAGE, PIN-695 542. 2. T.VIJAYAN, RESIDING AT SHEELA COTTAGE, LUTHAR GIRI, SCHOOL COMPOUND, NILAMEL, PIN-691 535. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P(C) NO.2376 OF 2011 APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ---------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S. NO.11 OF 2011 OF THE SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD DATED 23.7.2002. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION IN O.S. NO.11 OF 2011 FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE RECEIPTS SHOWING THE PAYMENT FROM THE PETITIONER'S SALARY. EXHIBIT P4 SALARY CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: ----------------------------------- NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.2376 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 26th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the second judgment debtor in O.S. No.11 of 2001 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Nedumangad. First respondent obtained a decree for recovery of money to the tune of Rs.3,11,750/- with interest and cost from petitioner and second respondent. Salary of petitioner was attached as per order on E.A. No.32 of 2008 at the rate of Rs.7,500/- per month. That order is under challenge in this proceeding. It is contended that attachment is against the provisions of Section 60(1)(i) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”). Petitioner has produced Ext.P4, Salary Certificate which shows that the aggregate amount payable to the petitioner per month is Rs.12,932/- but an amount of Rs.7,500/- was attached-. Learned counsel submitted that the attachment not only violates the provisions of Sec.60(1)(i) of the Code but has also continued for more than 24 months at a stretch. 2. If attachment has continued for more than 24 months it cannot be continued. It is open to the petitioner to approach O.P(C) No.2376 of 2011 -: 2 :- the executing court with appropriate application to stop further recovery. If any further application is filed by the first respondent- decree holder for attachment of salary of petitioner on the expiry of the statutory interval (after the period of first attachment) it is open to the petitioner to contend that attachment if any could only be in accordance with Sec.60(1)(i) of the Code. Leaving petitioner to the above remedies this Original Petition is closed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv