THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4158 OF 2009 Dated 10th September, 2009 Between: Manda Papa Rao … Petitioner And Bandari Srinivas … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Dr K.Satyanarayana Rao Counsel for the respondent: --- The Court made the following O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC is filed aggrieved by the order dated 05.08.2009, passed by the learned II- Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, in E.P.No.233 of 2009 in O.S.No.700 of 2008. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit was filed by the respondent for recovery of money and the same was decreed on 30.12.2008, for Rs.90,175/-. The respondent filed E.P.No.233 of 2009 for execution of the said decree. By the impugned order, the Court below, in exercise of the powers under Order XXI Rule 48 CPC, ordered for attachment of the salary of the petitioner in equal monthly installments @ Rs.4,500/- per month to realise the decretal amount. In this Civil Revision Petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no notice was issued to the petitioner by the Court below before passing the impugned order and he further contended that the said order is contrary to Section 60 CPC. Inasmuch as the decree is of the year 2008, and when the same has become final, it is open to the Court below to order for attachment of the salary for execution of the decree without issuing any notice. As regards the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is contrary to Section 60 CPC; the salary of the petitioner as stated in the Execution Petition is Rs.18,000/- per month and out of it, only an amount of Rs.4,500/- per month was ordered by the Court below to be attached. Hence, it cannot be said that the attachment is in violation of Section 60 CPC. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order impugned in this Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC. The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J Dated 10th September, 2009 vrn