Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

Heard Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.K. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. In challenge in the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is the order dated 12.05.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Nagaon in Money Execution Case No.2/2013, thereby rejecting the objection filed by the petitioner under section 47 read with section 151 CPC, by which the prayer was made for setting aside the order of attachment and for dismissing the execution proceeding.

3. The brief facts, relevant for the purpose of this application is that the respondent is the plaintiff in Money Suit No. 19/2000. The said suit was filed against one Nayan Paul, the husband of the petitioner and 2 others. The said suit was allowed against the said Nayan Paul vide judgment and decree dated 07.03.2001. In order to execute the decree, the respondent had filed an execution petition before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div), Nagaon which was registered as M. Ex. Case No.6/2002. The petitioner herein claimed that she was married to Nayan Paul (since deceased) on 11.05.2005, after the decree was passed and thereafter, without having any issue, Late Nayan Paul died on 16.02.2007 and his death was registered before the concerned Registrar, Birth and Death, Lanka, Nagaon.

4. By order dated 30.06.2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Nagaon, in M. Ex. Case No.6/2002, the name of the petitioner was substituted and a notice of the execution was issued to her. However, the proceeding of M. Ex. Case No.6/2002 was dismissed by order dated 25.07.2012 for non-prosecution. Thereafter, the respondent filed a second execution case being M. Ex. Case No.2/2013. In the said application, the petitioner herein was shown to be the defendant. As per the second execution petition, amongst others, a prayer was made for attachment of 1/3rd of salary of the petitioner, who was working under DRM (P), N. F. Railway, Lumding Division. On the basis of the said application, the learned Executing Court by order dated 11.04.2014, which was passed under the provisions of section 60 and Rule 48 of Order 21 of CPC, ordered the attachment of a sum of Rs. 3,370/- and directed that the DDO of the petitioner would deduct the said amount and remit the same to the Court till realization of the decreetal amount. Thereafter, the petitioner had appeared in the proceeding of M.Ex.2/2013 and had filed a written objection under section 47 read with section 151 CPC. In the said petition, it was projected that the husband of the petitioner had died on 16.02.2007 and that she was married only on 10.05.2005 long after the decree was passed. It was projected that under the provision of section 50(2) CPC, the application for execution was liable to be rejected and the order of attachment be set aside.

5. The learned Executing Court by referring to the various orders passed in M.Ex. Case No.6/2002, held that by rejecting the objection filed by the petitioner in M.Ex. Case No.6/2002, by order dated 30.06.2011, the learned Executing Court had held that the objection was not tenable and the petition of the respondent was allowed, as such, it was held that the matter was already decided in M.Ex. Case No.6/2002. Hence, by order dated 11.04.2014 passed in M.Ex. Case No.2/2013, the salary to the extent of Rs. 3,370/- was attached under section 60 read with Rule 48 of Order 21 CPC, from the salary till the realization of the decreetal amount.

6. This Court while issuing notice in this revision, by order dated 26.06.2015 passed an interim order to suspend the proceeding of M. Ex. Case No.2/2013 by further providing that if the salary of the petitioner had already been attached in terms of order dated 11.04.2014, in that event the same shall be released from attachment with immediate effect and until further orders.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the objection against the