IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2011 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1932 OP(C).No. 1045 of 2011(O) ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21/10/2010 IN EP 315/2009 IN OS.1284/2007 of II ADDL.MUNSIFF'S.COURT.,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER ------------------ T.A.FRANCIS, S/O.T.A.ANTONY, THAIKKATTIL HOUSE,ARANATTUKARA, TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) RESPONDENT: --------------------- SWARAJ KURIES (P) LTD., CHEMBUKKAVU, TRICHUR VILLAGE,TRICHUR TALUK, TRICHUR 680 027. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SMT P.BHAVADASAN, J. ---------------------------- O.P(c).No. 1045 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT In this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the relief sought for are as follows: i). call for the records relating to E.P.No.315/2009 in O.S.No.1284/2007 on the file of the IInd Additional Sub Court, Trichur. ii). direct the court below to permit petitioner to pay the decree amount in instalments. iii). to set aside the order of attachment of salary of the petitioner in E.P. No.315/2009 in O.S.No. 1284/2007 on the file of the IInd Additional Sub Court, Trichur to recover the decree amount. iv). grant such other relief's as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper as on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The petitioner suffered a decree in O.S.No.1284/2007 before the Additional Munsiff's Court, Thrissur, which was a suit for money. The decree was put in execution. The decree holder sought attachment of the salary of the petitioner in E.P.No.315/2009 in O.S.No.1284/2007 before the Additional Sub Court, Thrissur. 3. The court ordered attachment of salary of the petitioner to a tune of Rs.2,000/- per month until the decree amount is satisfied. The O.P(c).No. 1045 of 2011 2 complaint of the petitioner is that he had no opportunity to point out that the salary is not available for attachment and that therefore, considerable prejudice has been caused to him. According to him, the salary certificate which is available now would clearly show that after several recoveries balance portion of the salary is not attachable. He claims protection under Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code and points out that the order of attachment of the salary of the petitioner is illegal. It is seen from the impugned order that merely on the production of the salary certificate of the J.D. concerned attachment that has been ordered. The petitioner has a case that no portion of the salary is attachable in view of Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code. He can certainly approach the court below and seek necessary relief and reserving the liberty of the petitioner to do so, this petition is dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. ln