IMPORTANT POINTS:
• The interpretation of the words used in the proviso to S.60(1)(i), 'such portion of salary', would intend that only, the part of the salary which was attached by the Court, that alone is exempted permanently for future attachment. In this context, the words used as 'where such attachment' would indicate the meaning as "such portion of the salary".
• "benefit of exemption as provided in the proviso to Clause (1) to S.60(1) is only to such portion of salary as is liable for attachment and has been under attachment for 24 months. If there has been an upward variation in the portion of the salary as is liable to attachment, benefit of exemption would not be available to the portion in excess of the portion, which was liable for attachment".

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 while issuing the order of attachment of salary should make it specifically clear that the attachment shall be only for a period of twenty - four months and not thereafter."

4. The view, which was expressed in the ruling cited above, is that it is mandatory not to attach the salary of a person, in execution of one decree, for more than twenty - four months. It has been held that the proviso to S.60(1) (i) of the CPC stipulates that where attachment has been made in execution of one and the same decree over a portion of the salary of the judgment debtor and if such attachment has continued for a total period of 24 months, the salary of that judgment debtor is permanently exempted from attachment in execution of that decree.

5. But, in disagreement with the aforesaid proposition, the Single Judge has observed that the ruling held in Suseela's case (supra) places a different interpretation, which appears to be misconceived, over the proviso to S.60(1) (i) of the CPC, holding that it is mandatory not to attach the salary of a person in execution of one decree, for more than twenty - four months. Accordingly, the matter is placed before us to consider and interpret the wordings used in the proviso to S.60(1)(i) of the CPC.

6. The facts, from which the reference arises out, are that the attachment of the salary of the petitioner/3rd judgment debtor has been effected continuously for twenty - four months, and an amount of Rs.1000/- was attached from her salary. Now, again the respondent/decree holder has approached the Court below with an application to attach the salary of the petitioner/3rd judgment debtor, which was strenuously opposed by the petitioner.

7. Heard Sri. C. S. Manilal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. A. R. Dileep, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

8. The argument on the side of the petitioner is that once attachment of salary of the petitioner/3rd judgment debtor has been effected continuously for twenty - four months, the Court is prevented from attaching her salary, even after a lapse of twelve months, since it is related to the one and the same decree. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if attachment has continued for a total period of 24 months, the salary of that judgment debtor is completely and permanently exempted from attachment in execution of that decree.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent strenuously opposed the interpretation made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and contended that both the limbs of the proviso to S.60(1)(i) has to be read and interpreted together and such portion of salary as is liable to attachment and has been under attachment for a total period of 24 months alone is permanently exempted from attachment. The upward variation, if a