IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 22979 of 2010(O) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- A RAJAN, AGED 47 YEARS S/o. C P RAGHAVAN NAIR AMMATHEDAVALAPPIL HOUSE THIRUMITTAKODE P O OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD-678 001 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV RESPONDENT: --------------- CANARA BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER OTTAPPALAM BRANCH, OTTAPPALAM OTTAPPALAM TALUK , PALAKKAD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.No.22979 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 27th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Judgment debtor in E.P.No.68 of 2010 in O.S.No.371 of 2008 of the court of learned Munsiff, Ottappalam is the petitioner before me. He seeks a direction to permit him to pay the decree debt in installments at a time when he is facing threat for attachment of his salary. 2. Learned counsel states that an application for attachment of salary of petitioner is pending consideration of the executing court and that it is posted on 19-08-2010 for filing counter. According to the learned counsel petitioner is working in an aided school in Thrissur District and his disbursing officer is in Thrissur Taluk. According to learned counsel in view of the decision of this court in J. Ambujakshy Vs. State of Kerala and Ors.(2002(2) ILR Kerala 228) the Government of Kerala has no control over an aided school and hence petitioner is to be treated as a private employee coming under Order XX1 Rule 48A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel contends that in that circumstances the Munsiff's court, Ottappallam could not order attachment of salary of petitioner held by the disbursing W.P.C.No.22979 of 2010 : 2 : officer outside the jurisdiction of that court. 3. There is no order for attachment of salary issued by the executing court so that this court is required to consider at this stage the contention raised by petitioner. Execution petition stands posted on 19-08-2010 and as learned counsel for petitioner states, for filing counter of petitioner to the application for attachment of salary. It is open to the petitioner to resist the application on whatever ground that are available to him. Needless to say contentions raised will be considered by the executing court before passing orders on the application. There is no reason why this court should interfere in the matter at this stage. Resultantly without making any observation regarding merit of the contention raised by petitioner, I direct the executing court to consider the objections being raised by the petitioner to the application for attachment of salary. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-