THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1069 of 2011 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 02.12.2010 in E.P. No.116 of 2008 in O.S. No.14 of 2001 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur. 2. The petitioner herein is the judgment debtor no.1 and the respondent no.1 herein is the decree holder, and the respondent no.2 herein is the judgment debtor no.2, in the Execution Petition. ,The decree holder filed the Execution Petition for realization of the decreetal amount by way of attachment of salary of the judgment debtors. Vide the impugned order, the court below ordered attachment of salary of the petitioner/J.Dr.No.1 to a tune of Rs.3,000/- per month, subject to proviso to Section 60 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), while dismissing the Execution Petition in respect of the Respondent no.2/judgment debtor no.2. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is not in accordance with proviso to Section 60 (1) (i) CPC, and the same is liable to be set aside. 4. Proviso to Section 60 (1) (i) CPC reads thus: “Provided that where any part of such portion of the salary as is liable to attachment has been under attachment, whether continuously or intermittently, for a total period of twenty four months, such portion shall be exempt from attachment until the expiry of a further period of twelve months, and, where such attachment has been made in execution of one and the same decree, shall, after the attachment has continued for a total period of twenty four months, be finally exempt from attachment in execution of that decree.” As seen from the impugned order, it is clear that the attachment was only effected for a period of four months and thereafter, the Execution Petition was closed at the instance of the decree holder. So, it is not a case where the attachment was made continuously or intermittently for a period of 24 months. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Even otherwise, the petitioner is given liberty to file an application to raise attachment showing that his case falls under proviso to Section 60 (1) (i) CPC. 5. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 25.3.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1069 of 2011 25.3.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1069 of 2011 25.3.2011 Between: N.Anjaneyulu …Petitioner And M/s. Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd. & another …Respondents