IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.2021 of 2008 Between: Akula Shaik Shavali .. Petitioner AND Anantha Siva Prasad .. Respondent ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 13-02-2008 in E.P.No.61 of 2007 in S.C.No.18 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur. The Execution Petition was filed against the revision petitioner herein for recovery of a decree debt by way of attachment of salary of the revision petitioner. The warrant of attachment directed the Drawing and Disbursing Officer to withhold the sum of Rs.10,290/- from the salary of the revision petitioner in monthly instalments of 1/3rd salary excluding first one thousand rupees. The revision petitioner challenges the order on the ground of not only the violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but also the recovery of Rs.1,630/- per month in E.P.No.449 of 2006 in O.S.No.469 of 2006 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Nandyal towards recovery of Rs.56,500/-. He contended that as he has 25 years more service, there need be no apprehension of non-recovery and hence, the attachment order be set aside. While ordering notice before admission on 14-05-2008, the learned Judge ordered interim stay subject to condition of attachment of Rs.500/- per month. Sri Kuldeep Jadhav, learned counsel representing Sri V. Raja Gopal Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, submitted that the interim order was given effect to and Rs.500/- per month was being recovered by way of attachment of salary right from the date of order. The learned counsel also reiterated the contentions of the revision petitioner against the impugned order of attachment. None appeared on behalf of the respondent though served with notice of this revision petition. It is seen from the material on record that by virtue of the order of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal, in E.P.No.449 of 2006 in O.S.No.469 of 2006, the salary of the revision petitioner was attached to an extent of 1/3rd after deducting Rs.1000/- for a period of 24 months for recovery of Rs.56,500/- towards the decree debt. Of course by now, the said attachment must have ceased to be in force on expiry of 24 months. However, the E.P. in question was filed when the other attachment was already in force and it did not give any credit to the earlier attachment of the other Court and it did not calculate as to what would be balance liable for attachment from out of the salary in terms of various restrictions imposed by Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. At any rate, the amount of Rs.500/- per month ordered by this Court by way of interim arrangement was recovered almost for more than 24 months, whereas the total period prescribed by the proviso to Section 60 (1) (i) is only 24 months. Keeping in view all the above facts and circumstances, the interim order passed by this Court can be made the final order in this revision petition limiting the recovery of the said sum of Rs.500/- per month to the total period of 24 months without prejudice to the right of the decree holder to execute his decree against any remaining attachable portion of the salary or otherwise. Accordingly, the interim direction given on 14-05-2008 shall be the final order in this revision petition subject to such recovery being limited to a maximum period of 24 months and the impugned order is modified and the Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 17-06-2010 Ksn