Immediate liability can be postponed on sufficient and reasonable grounds.

This Revision is directed against the Order of I Additional District Munsif, Dindigul in E.P.No.578/1998 in ARC.No.18/1997 (dated 08.11.2000) ordering attachment of the salary of the Revision Petitioner of Rs.2,000/=.

2. This Revision raises question of frequent occurrence before the Executing Courts as to the extent of attachment of salary in execution of decree.

3. We may refer to brief relevant facts most of which are uncontroverted.

A.R.C.No.18/1997:- First Respondent / Shri Ram Chit Funds is a Chit Fund Company. Second Respondent / D1 joined a Chit Group value of Rs.30,000/=. Instalments of Rs.500/= per month payable for 60 months. The 2nd Respondent prized the chit on 19.11.1993. The bid amount was Rs.29,000/=. Prize amount paid was Rs.21,000/=. Revision Petitioner and Respondents 3 and 4 stood as Guarantors.

Principal Debtor / Second Respondent / D1 defaulted in payment. After statutory notice dated 22.07.1997, A.R.C.No.18/1997 was filed by the Chit Fund. Award was passed on 26.09.1997 for Rs.16,000/= with interest at 12% from 01.06.1998 with costs.

E.P.No.266/1998 and E.P.No.578/1998:- E.P.No.266/1998 was filed for arrest of the Second Respondent / Principal Debtor, which was dismissed on 20.08.1998. Thereafter, E.P.No.578/1998 was filed for recovery of Rs.18,167.25 by attachment of salary of the Revision petitioner. Revision Petitioner is working as 'Fitter' in the Office of Government Automobile Workshop, Dindigul. He is drawing salary of Rs.6,400/=. His salary was ordered to be attached to the extent of Rs.2,000/= (after deducting non-attachable salary). Attachment of Rs.2,000/= per month was ordered on 08.11.2000. As on the date of Execution Petition, amount due was Rs.18,806.25 with further interest.

4. Aggrieved over the order of attachment of his salary, Revision Petitioner / Guarantor has preferred this Revision.

5. Denying the Petitioner's liability to pay the amount, on behalf of Revision Petitioner, it is contended that R1 / Plaintiff ought to have proceeded only against the Principal Debtor, who had defaulted in payment of chit instalments, instead of proceeding to attach the Petitioner's salary. Pointing out that the Revision Petitioner is working as 'Fitter' in Government Automobile Workshop, which involves manual labour work, and that the amount earned by him is only "Wages", which is exempt from attachment under sec. 60(h) CPC, the order of attachment is seriously assailed that it contravenes Sec.60(i) CPC - attaching the salary beyond the permissible limit.

6. Countering the arguments of the Revision Petitioner, the counsel for the 1st Respondent / Plaintiff submitted that under Sec.128 of the Contract Act, the liability of the Surety is co-extensive with the Principal Debtor. It is further submitted that when security is taken for the purpose of ensuring payment of money, the Revision Petitioner cannot urge to defer the execution in this regard. Reliance is placed upon AIR 1969 SC 297. It is further submitted that when the Revision Petitioner is drawing salary of Rs.6,400/=, there is no contravention of provision of Sec.60(i) CPC in ordering attachment of Rs.2,000/=. Revision Petitioner working as Fitter cannot be construed as the person employed in Manual Labour to categorise him as the Labourer to attract the exemption of Section 60(h).

7. Upon consideration of rival submissions and available materials, the following points, which are of frequent occurrence before the Executing courts, arise for consideration in this Revision.

(i) Under Sec.128 of the Contract Act when the liability of the Surety is co-extensive with the Principal Debtor, can the Revision Petitioner resist his liability to pay the amount insisting to defer the execution ?

(ii) Whether the Revision Petitioner is right in contending that the salary drawn by him is only "Wages" which is exempt from attachment under Sec.60(h) CPC ?

(iii) Whether the order of attachment of Rs.2,000/= from the salary of the Revision Petitioner is within t