THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1954 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 CPC questioning order, dated 18.04.2011 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, in E.P.No.30 of 2011 in O.S.No.1814 of 2005. Respondent herein filed O.S.No.1814 of 2005 against the petitioner for recovery of Rs.86,000/- alleged to have been borrowed by her husband. The said suit was decreed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal by judgment and decree, dated 25.09.2010. The said decree reads as under: “This suit is coming before me for final hearing and disposal before me in the presence of Sri C.Vidyasagar Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri A.Madan Mohan Rao, Advocate for the Defendant, and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, and having been stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE THAT the suit of the plaintiff be and is hereby partly decreed for Rs.50,000/- with costs and interest @6% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.50,000/- against the estate of the deceased borrower T.Mallaiah lying the hands of the defendant.” There upon, the respondent/decree holder filed E.P.No.30 of 2011 under Order XXI Rule 48 CPC against the petitioner/judgment debtor to attach her salary for realization of E.P. amount of Rs.65,000/-. The said E.P. was contested by the petitioner/judgment debtor mainly on the ground that the decree in the suit was passed only against the estate of the deceased borrower, by name, T.Mallaiah, lying in the hands of the petitioner as such her salary cannot be attached. The Court below by the impugned order having observed that as the petitioner secured job on compassionate grounds on the death of her husband, she has to discharge the decretal amount, ordered to attach the salary of the petitioner. In this Civil Revision Petition, it is contended by Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is beyond the scope of the decree itself. It is submitted that the salary of the petitioner cannot be attached as much as the decree was passed only against the estate of the decreased. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that as the petitioner secured job in view of the death of her husband, who borrowed the amount during his lifetime, to execute the decree, the salary of the petitioner can be attached and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. From a perusal of the decree, which is extracted above, it is clear that the decree passed in O.S.No.1814 of 2005 is a conditional one and it is only against the estate of the deceased. Merely on the ground that the petitioner is given job on compassionate grounds in view of the death of her husband, the salary, which is being drawn by the petitioner, by no stretch of imagination, cannot be treated as the estate of the deceased. The attachment ordered by the Court below is beyond the scope of the decree itself. In that view of the matter, the impugned order to attach the salary of the petitioner is liable to be set aside. For the aforesaid reasons, order, dated 18.04.2011 passed in E.P.No.30 of 2011 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. However, it is made clear that this will not preclude the respondent from seeking to execute the decree against the estate of the deceased by filing appropriate application. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 17th AUGUST, 2011. kvni