IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 37158 of 2007(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ V.SHANMUGHAN, S/O. VELU ACHARI, AGED 43 YEARS, ANJALI, UMAYANALLOOR P.O., MAYYANAD VILLAGE, KOLLAM WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXE-ENGINEER, MUVATTUPUZHA VALLEY IRRIGATION PROJECT (M.V.I.P), ADDL. SUB DIVISION, PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.GOPALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KSFE LTD., KADAPPAKADA BRANCH, KOLLAM. 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (RR), KSFE LTD., KOLLAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MUVATTUPUZHA VALLY IRRIGATION PROJECT (M.V.I.P), DIVISION NO.4, PIRAVOM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. G.RADHAKRISHNAN, ESI PUTHUVALPURAYIDOM, ASHRAMAM P.O., KOLLAM - 2. 5. V.T.SOMAN, VADAKKEMADAM, ASHRAMAM WEST P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.NAVEEN, SC, K.S.F.E. LTD. FOR R.1 & R2 SRI.M.L.SAJEEVAN, SC, KSFE LTD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.37158 of 2007 W ------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January, 2008. ORDER OF REFERENCE Admit. Standing counsel takes notice for respondents 1 and 2. Issue notice by speed post to respondents 3 to 5. 2. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner is that the attachment of his salary is in excess of the limits prescribed under Section 60(1)(i) of the Code of Civil Procedure; that the prohibitory orders, currently in force and sought to be made operative, show that a total amount of Rs.8,000/- is to be attached from his salary. Ext.P5 salary certificate shows that the take-home-salary for May, 2001 was Rs.4,139/-, out of his gross emoluments of Rs.9764/-. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an attachment, in excess of the permissible limits under Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is impermissible, even if the attachment is sought to be effected under the Revenue Recovery Act. Taking W.P.(C).NO.37158/07 :: 2 :: note of the fact that the provisions under Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by virtue of Section 80 of the Revenue Recovery Act, he relies on the judgment of this court reported in Bhargavan Pillai v. Special Dy. Tahsildar {2003 (3) KLT 753} in support of his contention. 4. Learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2, on the other hand, relies on the judgment of the Division Bench reported in Sukumaran v. K.S.R.T.C. {2002 (3) KLT 169}. The Division Bench in the case of Sukumaran held that the provisions of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable only to attachment and sale in execution of a decree and are not applicable to recovery made from the salary of a defaulter, pursuant to an agreement executed with the person, from whom the loan was obtained. 5. The Bench decision in Sukumaran has not been brought to the notice of the learned single Judge, W.P.(C).NO.37158/07 :: 3 :: who decided Bhargavan Pillai's case {2003(3) KLT 753}. Though Section 80 of the Revenue Recovery Act, as such, does not seem to have been considered by the Bench in Sukumaran, the finding by the Division Bench in Sukumaran shows that the limits of attachment as per the Civil Procedure Code, are applicable only to attachment in execution of a decree, obviously, would have had an impact on the reasoning adopted by the learned single Judge, who decided Bhargavan Pillai's case. At any rate, the opinion expressed by the Division Bench in the case of Sukumaran throws a different light on the principle applied by the learned single Judge in the case of Bhargavan Pillai. 6. In my view, the principle laid down by this court in the case of Bhargavan Pillai, reported in {2003(3) KLT 753}, therefore, requires a reconsideration, in the light of the pronouncement by the Division Bench in the case of Sukumaran v. W.P.(C).NO.37158/07 :: 4 :: K.S.R.T.C. {2002 (3) KLT 169}. In the circumstances, the question requires an authoritative pronouncement by a Division Bench of this court. 7. I, therefore, adjourn this writ petition to be heard by a Division Bench under Section 3 of the Kerala High Court Act. Place the papers before the Honourable the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge