Annie John, J.

1. This reference has been made, by the Single Judge, for determining the legality and correctness of, the decision in Suseela v. Inasu, 2007 (3) KHC 980, in view of the proviso to S.60(1)(i) of the CPC.

2. The question, referred to us, centers around the interpretation over the proviso to S.60(1)(i) of the CPC. According to Suseela's case (supra) it contains an interdiction, from attaching the salary of a person, in execution of a decree, for more than twenty - four months; but, according to the learned Single Judge, it seems warrant a second look, with reference to the two limbs of the proviso to S.60(1)(i) of the CPC.

3. In Suseela's case (supra), it is held thus:

"Proviso to S.60(1)(i) stipulates that where 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 month, be finally exempt from attachment in execution of that decree. So, it is mandatory not to attach the salary of a person in execution of one decree for more than twenty - four months. If salary is attached, thereafter it is against law and it has to be instantaneously stopped. In these type of cases, the Court w