The period of 24 months for exemption from attachment of a judgment debtor's salary under the proviso to Clause (i) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, should be calculated from the date of the initial attachment, even if the attachable portion of the salary was not correctly determined until later.

( 1 ) THIS revisional application raises a short point with regard to the proviso to Clause (i) in the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 60 of the Civil P. C

( 2 ) THE opposite party No. 1 obtained a money decree against a partnership firm opposite party No, 2, and its partners including the present petitioner. That decree was put into execution in Money Execution Case No. 4/78. By an order dated November 23, 1978, the executing Court attached a sum of Rs. 100/- from the salary of the judgment debtor petitioner with effect from December 1978. On January 3, 1979, the decree holder opposite party No. 1 made a further application before the executing Court to the effect that a sum of Rs. 300/- should be attached out of the petitioner's salary since under Clause (i) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 60 of the Code such- portion of his salary could lawfully be attached. That ap-plication of the decree holder was allowed on September 13, 1980, when the executing Court directed that a sum of Rs. 300/- may be attached out of the salary of the judgment debtor petitioner. On December 5, 1980, the present judgment debtor petitioner filed two applications before the executing Court. In one of these applications he prayed for review of the assessment of the portion of his salary determined to be attachable and by the other he prayed for an order exempting his salary from any further attachment since his salary had been subjected to attachment in execution of one and the same decree for more than 24th months. Obviously, the petitioner sought for protection under the proviso to Clause (i) as aforesaid. The learned Judge in the executing Court rejected both the said applications by an order dated May 5, 1981 and the judgment debtor petitioner sought for a further review of that order in so far as his prayer for exemption from further attachment had been refused. That application had been rejected by the executing Court by the order impugned. Hence, this revisional application by the judgment debtor petitioner which is being heard on contest by the decree holder.

( 3 ) THE short point, which has been raised by Mr. Mitra appearing in support of this revisional application for our consideration, is as to whether when the judgment debtor petitioner's salary had been subjected to an attachment continuously for a period of more than 24 months calculating the said period on and from December 1978, that is, the initial attachment for a sum of Rs. 100/-in execution of one and the same decree, big salary is entitled to exemption from any further attachment. The learned Judge in the executing Court appears to have taken the view that it is only when the Court correctly determines the portion of the salary liable to attachment and attaches the same, that the limitation of 24 months prescribed by the proviso starts to run. Since in the present case though a sum of Rs. 100/- was attached with effect from December 1978, yet the correct assessment of the attachable portion of the petitioner's salary was made on September 13, 1980 when a sum of Rs. 300/- was directed to be attached and bence until a period of 24 months of attachment since that later date expires, the petitioner is not entitled to the exemption prescribed by the proviso.

( 4 ) ON a careful review of the material provisions in this regard we are unable to sustain the view taken by the learned Judge in the executing Court. In our considered opinion, such a view may well frustrate the very object of the proviso since a decree holder may from time to time either on the ground of enhancement of salary or on any plea of mistake seek review of the assessment of the attachable portion of the judgment debtor's salary and if the period of 24 months is to be calculated from every such date of review of reassessments, the exemption contemplated by the proviso may never be available to a judgment debtor. That certainly was not the intention of the legislature when it