THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2401 of 2011 Date:24.11.2011 Between: Shaik Madeena ..... Petitioner/J.Dr. AND Kovvuri Veeraghava Reddy and another. .....Respondents/D.Hr. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2401 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is Judgment-Debtor No.2. The 1st respondent laid O.S.No.146 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. He obtained a decree against two defendants including the present petitioner. The Decree-Holder thereafter laid E.P.No.112 of 2009 against the two Judgment-Debtors claiming an amount of `1,29,728/- by way of attachment of the salary of both the Judgment-Debtors. The petitioner who is the 2nd Judgment-Debtor contended that his salary was already under attachment and that till the earlier attachment period concluded, his salary cannot be attached. The objection raised by the 2nd Judgment- Debtor was overruled by the Execution Court. The Execution Court ordered for the attachment of the salaries of Judgment-Debtors 1 & 2. 2. Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd Judgment-Debtor laid the present revision. The 1st Judgment-Debtor is arrayed as respondent No.2. Notice is not served upon the 2nd respondent herein. However, as the controversy is between the petitioner and the 1st respondent, this petition is disposed of without notice to the 2nd respondent. 3. Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner/2nd Judgment-Debtor contended that the salary of the 2nd Judgment-Debtor was attached w.e.f 18-07-2009 in E.P.No.29 of 2008 in O.S.No.326 of 2005. The amount attached in that case was `1,659/-. The gross salary of 2nd Judgment-Debtor admittedly is `9,350/-. His net salary would appear to be `7,350/-. Attachment to the extent of 2/3rds of the same after the first `1,000/- is permissible under Section 60 CPC. Added to it, the 24 months period had already expired. 4. Sri J. Rajashekar Rao, learned counsel for the Decree-Holder contended that as the period of 24 months had already expired from the date of the attachment in another case, the salary of the Judgment-Debtor No.2 might be attached in execution of the decree. The learned counsel for the Judgment-Debtor No.2 drew my attention to the fact that when stay was granted in the revision, the Judgment-Debtor No.2 was directed to deposit `20,000/-. It would appear that the Judgment- Debtor No.2 complied with the conditional order. The petitioner/Judgment-Debtor No.2 therefore submits that execution of the decree by way of attachment may be postponed for some more time. 5. Where the Judgment-Debtor No.2 had already deposited `20,000/- pursuant to the orders of the Court in this revision, I deem it appropriate to grant three months time to the Judgment-Debtor No.2 to discharge the decretal amount in a lump sum. In the event, the Judgment-Debtor No.2 does not discharge the decretal amount in a lump sum in the meanwhile, his salary to the permissible extent deserves to be attached. 6. Accordingly, this revision is disposed of holding that the petitioner may discharge the entire decretal amount within three months from today, till which time, the 1st respondent/Decree-Holder is restrained from executing the decree against the 2nd Judgment-Debtor. In the event, the 2nd Judgment-Debtor does not discharge the entire decretal amount within three months from today, the Decree-Holder is at liberty to execute the decree as against the Judgment-Debtor No.2 by attaching his salary to the extent permissible under Section 60 CPC. The Decree-Holder is permitted to withdraw the amount of `20,000/- deposited by Judgment- Debtor No.2 to the credit of the E.P. No costs. _________________________ JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Date:24.11.2011. mrb