THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4280 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition by judgment debtor No.1 in E.P. No. 280 of 2011 is against the order dated 27.6.2011 passed by the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. The petitioner herein availed housing loan from State Bank of Hyderabad, Indrapalem Branch, Kakinada, the first respondent herein. The Bank filed O.S.No.58 of 2008 for recovery of the amount in addition to initiating action under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The house was taken possession and was sold in public auction. Even thereafter, the balance of amount paid to be remained. The bank then filed E.P. No.280 of 2011 under Order XXI Rule 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for attachment of salary of the petitioner, who is a Work Inspector in Roads & Buildings Department, Kakinada. In the E.P., the petitioner raised two defences. He contended that all the payments made were not given proper credit and that in view of another attachment, which is being enforced, the salary cannot be further attached as per the proviso to Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 60 of CPC. Both these objections were over ruled by the lower Court while ordering attachment of salary of the petitioner herein. The Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Aswathanarayana representing Mr. A.K. Kishore Reddy would submit that the Court below was in error in ignoring Section 60(1)(i) and therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. A perusal of the order of the lower Court would show that the plea of the petitioner that there was an existing attachment was not accepted by the Court below. It is observed therein that the petitioner did not furnish any details of the earlier attachment and that pursuant to attachment order served to garnishee, no letter was sent by the garnishee informing the Court about the earlier attachment. These two are valid reasons for rejecting the objections of the petitioner. This Court, after due consideration does not find any reason to interfere with the findings. The Civil Revision Petition is mis-conceived and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO,J) 5th November, 2011 pnb