HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1523 of 2009 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.500 of 1999 against the petitioner in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, for recovery of certain amount. The suit was decreed on 09/07/2001 for a sum of Rs.44,720/-. Initially, the respondent filed E.P.No.248 of 2001 and got attached the salary of the petitioner. After a sum of Rs.37,804/- was realized, the EP was closed obviously on account of expiry of 24 months of attachment. The respondent filed E.P.No.27 of 2009 for recovery of the balance of the amount. He prayed for attachment of the salary of the petitioner. The EP was opposed by the petitioner placing reliance on proviso (i) to Section 60 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity ‘CPC’). The Executing Court did not accept the plea of the petitioner and allowed the EP through its order dated 12/03/2009. Hence, this revision petition. Heard Sri L.J.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the respondent is served with notice, he has not entered appearance. The decree passed against the petitioner stood partly satisfied to an extent of Rs.37,804/- in E.P.No.248 of 2001. For recovery of the balance of the amount the respondent filed another EP being No.27 of 2009. The only mode chosen by the respondent for recovery of the amount is by way of attachment of salary of the petitioner. Proviso (i) to Section 60 (1) of CPC restricts the attachment of salary of the judgment-debtor in any EP for a period of 24 months. Beyond that the attachment cannot be continued whether in a single spell or intermittently. Admittedly, the salary of the petitioner was attached for a period of 24 months. Therefore, that is no longer available to be attached. The mere fact that the salary of the petitioner cannot be attached for recovery of the balance of the decretal amount does not disentitle the respondent to choose other modes. It is for him to take necessary steps. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Executing Court to enable the respondent to choose alternative modes of execution of the decree to the extent it remained not satisfied. No order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 08th June, 2010 SKM