1. 1. Thepetitioner, employed with a local authority, is a guarantor for a loan availed by the third respondent from the first respondent, a co-operative bank. He executed an agreement to which Section 37 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the "KCS Act", applies. Thereby, the creditor may require the petitioners employer to deduct amounts due to it from the petitioners emoluments. In exercise of that covenant, supported by the law contained in Section 37 of the KCS Act, the first respondent creditor issued Ext.P1 to the petitioners employer, seeking deduction at the rate of Rs.2,000/-per month from the petitioners salary. This is under challenge.

2. 2. Thequestion whether there is any outer limit for the amounts that could be recovered by recourse to Section 37 of the KCS Act is well settled by the decision of this Court in Tvm. Co-op. A.& R.D.Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2004 (2) KLJ 85].

3. 3. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner, very persuasively, argued that the aforesaid precedent was rendered without pithily considering the question as to whether Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, hereinafter, the "CPC", particularly, proviso (i) under sub-section (1) thereof, has any impact on the right of a co-operative society to invoke Section 37(1) of the KCS Act. It is also argued that there is an incorporation of Section 60 of CPC by reference, going by the provision of Rule 77 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter, the "KCS Rules". Accordingly, it is argued that with reference to Rule 77 of the KCS Rules, the total amount that could be recovered by recourse to Section 37(1) of the KCS Act is limited by proviso (i) under Section 60

(1) of CPC.

4. Section 60 of the CPC and Rule 77 of the KCS Rules relate exclusively to the realm of attachments, in the course of execution of a decree, award or other concluded measures and also in certain cases, to attachments before judgment.

Proviso (i) to Section 60(1) of the CPC and the proviso thereto provide that the salary, to the extent of the first one thousand rupees and two-thirds of the remainder, shall not be liable to attachment or sale, in execution of any decree other than a decree for maintenance; subject further to the prescription as against continuous attachment as governed by the proviso to proviso (i). Section 60 CPC falls in Part II of that Code relating to Execution and is grouped under the sub-heading Attachment. It is that provision that is incorporated by reference as per Rule 77 of the KCS Rules. That Rule falls in Chapter XI of the KCS Rules, which chapter relates to Execution for Decisions, Awards and Orders. A reading of Rule 77 of the KCS Rules would also categorically show that it applies only where salary or allowance or wages forms the movable property to be attached. Therefore, the provision in proviso (i) of Section 60(1) CPC and the proviso thereto would apply only to attachments under the KCS Rules by virtue of Rule 77 of those Rules.

1. 5. Section 37(1) of the KCS Act operates notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force. That non obstante clause, which is part of a primary legislation, would override any other provision contained in any law for the time being in force. Even in that view of the matter, Rule 77 of the KCS Rules, which essentially is a piece of subordinate legislation whereby Section 60 of the CPC gets incorporated by reference, would, in no way, touch the flow of the incidents of Section 37(1) of the KCS Act.

2. 6. That apart, what is authorized under Section 37 (1) is the competence of the employer of a debtor to deduct from the salary or wages payable to the debtor, such amounts which may be required to be deducted on the basis of an agreement that may be entered into by a society which gives credit in favour of that debtor. Precisely, all that Section 37(1) does is to recognize agreements between co-operative