Y. V. NARAYANA, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is preferred against the decree and order dated 19. 7. 1997 passed in E. P. No. 107 of 1995 in O. S. No. 495 of 1987 on the file of I Addl. District Munsif s Court, Tanuku.

( 2 ) THE Judgment-debtor is the revision petitioner. The respondent-decree holder filed the E. P. under Order XXI Rule 37 CPC for the arrest of the Judgment-debtor. It seems, the decree holder previously filed E. P. Nos. 153 of 1988, 102 of 1990 and 113 of 1994 and realised certain amount that was due under the decree which was obtained by him. Still a sum of Rs. 8,500/- is found due to him. Therefore, he filed the present E. P. The Judgment-debtor is an employee in Andhra Sugars limited and is drawing a sum of Rs. 3,600/- towards his salary. While so, the judgment-debtor resisted the present E. P. contending that his salary was under attachment continuously for 24 months in E. P. No. 102 of 1990 and as per the provisions of Section 60 CPC, his salary cannot be attached again in the present E. P.

( 3 ) ON a consideration of the arguments advanced on either side and the evidence that was adduced on record, the Court below rejected the contention of the J. D. and consequently allowed the E. P. Hence, the revision.

( 4 ) THE very same contention which was raised before the Court below is raised before this Court also on behalf of the Judgment debtor. It is contended that when there is a bar under Section 60 CPC for again attaching the salary of the judgment debtor after 24 months of attachment on the previous occasion, the decree holder cannot proceed against him now. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed strong reliance upon the judgment of Calcutta High Court in Kashi Prosad v. A. A. D. Cruz. Paragraph 6 which is relevant for our present purpose is extracted below:"the bar on an attachment to the extent as laid down in Section 60 of the code of Civil Procedure, in any event, so far as it relates to the salary of public officer, or of any servant of the Railway company or of local authority is based on grounds of public policy. That being so, no execution can be levied in respect of such salary. If exempted payments can be reached in execution by the appointment of a receiver by way of equitable execution, the protection afforded by the section is to a great extent lost. Hence it would be an improper use of the equitable remedy to employ it to avoid a very definite bar created by statute law to achieving the very object for which the receiver is appointed. Therefore where the salary of the judgment-debtor having been in continued attachment under a decree for 24 months has become finally exempted from attachment in execution of that decree, the decree-holder cannot be allowed to execute the decree and reach the salary in execution by appointment of a receiver by way of equitable execution. "

( 5 ) IT is seen that under Section 51 of the code, the executing Court is duty bound to execute a decree through any one of the modes that are prescribed therein. Insofar as the attachment of any property is concerned, section 60 of the Code exempted certain properties from attachment. Clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 60, which is relevant for the purpose of the case on hand, exempted salary to the extent of the first four hundred rupees and two-thirds of the remainder in execution of any decree other than a decree for maintenance from attachment. The proviso to clause (i) is extracted below:"provided that where any part of such portion of the salary as is liable tc 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 th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document