Revision petitioner obtained a decree for payment of money against respondents and filed E.P.No.74 of 2001 for recovery of the amount due under the said decree and realized some amounts from respondents 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 for which part satisfaction was recorded and that E.P. was closed. Thereafter, revision petitioner filed E.P.No.90 of 2004 for recovery of the balance amount due under the decree by way of attachment of the salary of the fourth respondent. Fourth respondent filed his counter contending that inasmuch as joint liability is different from joint and several liability, and since the decree holder cannot divide the amount due under a decree obtained by him against several persons and recover those portions from the judgment debtors as per his choice and since the decree holder chose to proceed against the other respondents earlier, it cannot, subsequently, seek attachment of his salary, when the other respondents against whom it chose to proceed against earlier have the capacity to discharge the amount due to it under the decree

2. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the parties. The executing Court by relying on K.S.R.MURTHY V. M/S.S.R.CHIT FUNDS PVT