IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2010 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23532 of 2010(O) ---------------------------------- EP 762/2008 IN OS.2210/2007 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------- C.V.JOBY,S/O.LATE VARUNNI, CHEMMUNDA SOORYA GRAMAM DESOM,CHEMBUKKAV VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SMT.LAKSHMI RAJAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- M/S.JESUS KURIES(P) LTD., THRISSUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK TRICHUR DISTRICT PIN-680 609. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ WP(C).No. 23532/2010(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.2210/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR DATED 23/01/2008. P2: COPY OF THE ATTACHMENT ORDER IN O.S.NO.2210/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR DATED 21/05/2009. P3: COPY OF THE INTIMATION GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER DATED 28/05/2009. P4: COPY OF THE SALARY CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs/ THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.23532 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 15th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Exhibit P2, order attaching salary at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month is under challenge in this petition at the instance of petitioner who is the judgment debtor in E.P. No.762 of 2008 in O.S. No.2210 of 2007 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff-I, Thrissur. Learned counsel contends that as per Ext.P4, net pay of petitioner is only Rs.2,780.43 and hence the attachment at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month is illegal. I have heard learned counsel for respondent as well. 2. I am unable to accept contention advanced by learned counsel for petitioner. Only such of the amount as are exempted from attachment under Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure need be deducted while considering attachable portion of the salary. I do not find reason to interfere with Ext.P2, order. But I am inclined to keep the order of attachment in abeyance on condition that petitioner deposited in the executing court at the rate of `.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand and five hundred only) per month for payment to the respondent. W.P(C) No.23532 of 2010 -: 2 :- Resultantly, Original Petition is disposed of in the following lines: It is directed that Ext.P2, order of attachment will stand in abeyance during the period for which attachment has been made on condition that petitioner deposited in the executing court for payment to the respondent at the rate of `.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand and five hundred only) on or before 5th of every month (beginning from 01.01.2011) during period the attachment was to be in force. In case there is default in depositing any installment, attachment will stand revived as ordered by the court below for the rest of the period of attachment computed from the date of default. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv