IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.2762 of 2010 Between: Vanam Koteswara Rao .. Petitioner AND State Bank of India (ADB) Gajwel, Medak District .. Respondent Petition against the order dated 01-06-2010 in E.P. No.21 of 2008 in O.S. No.50 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Siddipet. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K. Govind, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri M. Narender Reddy, Standing Court for the respondent, the Court made the following ORDER: The civil revision petition is directed against the order in E.P. No.21 of 2008 in O.S. No.50 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Siddipet, dated 01-06-2010. The execution petition was filed for attachment of salary of the judgment-debtor for recovering the decree debt and costs of execution. The judgment-debtor working as a librarian in Government Degree College, Gajwel submitted that in view of his financial difficulties and his daughter and son being students of medicine and engineering, he may be permitted to pay at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month till satisfaction of the decree. The executing Court passed the impugned order stating that the attachment of salary under Order XXI Rule 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”) shall be subject to the provisions of Section 60 of CPC. The executing Court directed attachment of salary of the judgment-debtor to the extent of two-thirds of gross salary after deducting the first one thousand rupees from his total salary. The same was challenged by the judgment-debtor in this revision alleging that the impugned order is in violation of Section 60 of CPC. Sri K. Govind, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri M. Narender Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondent are heard. The only point for consideration is whether the order of attachment passed by the executing Court is legal ? Point: Section 60 of CPC provided in sub-section (1) (i) that salary to the extent of the first one thousand rupees and two-thirds of the remainder in execution of any decree other than a decree for maintenance shall not be liable to attachment or sale. Section 60 (1) Proviso (l) also exempts any allowance forming part of the emoluments of any Government servant which the appropriate Government may by notification in the Official Gazette declare to be exempt from attachment and Explanation II to Section 60 sub- section (1) provides that ‘salary’ for the purpose of clause (i) means the total monthly emoluments, excluding any allowance declared exempt from attachment under the provisions of clause (l). Sub-section (1A) of Section 60 directs that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, an agreement by which a person agrees to waive the benefit of any exemption under Section 60 shall be void. The impugned order directing exemption from attachment of only the first one thousand rupees and further directing attachment of two-thirds of the remaining salary is obviously in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 60 of CPC and what all Order XXI Rule 48 of CPC permits is only attachment of such salary or allowance of the Government servant which is attachable as per Section 60 of CPC. When sub-section (1A) of Section 60 mandates that even by an agreement between the parties any exemption granted by Section 60 cannot be waived, the public policy is clear that the exemptions granted by Section 60 are inviolable. Consequently, the impugned order has to be modified restricting the attachment of salary only to the extent permitted by Section 60 of CPC. It should also be noted that the executing Court cannot be considered to be wrong in not considering the request of the judgment-debtor to permit him to pay at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month, as it could not have denied the right of the decree-holder to execute the decree in any of the alternative ways in which it is entitled to execute the decree under the CPC. Therefore, the impugned order of attachment, dated 01-06-2010 in E.P. No.21 of 2008 in O.S. No.50 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Siddipet is set aside and the attachment of salary of the judgment-debtor therein shall only be to the extent of such salary beyond the first one thousand rupees and two-thirds of the remainder, salary for the purpose of said calculation necessarily excluding any allowance forming part of the emoluments of the judgment-debtor which the appropriate Government declared to be exempt from attachment and the attachment shall be restricted to the total period permitted by Section 60 (1) Proviso (i) Proviso of CPC. The civil revision petition is allowed accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 22-07-2010 Svv