This is a petition filed by one Srinivasan for revising and setting aside the order of the Subordinate Judge of Salem in E. P. No. 157 of 1955, in O.P. No. 29 of 1955, holding that dearness allowance will be part of his salary, and that, therefore, though he was drawing only a basic pay of Rs. 95 as he was drawing a dearness allowance of Rs. 77-11-0 in addition, the rule in the Civil Procedure Code prohibiting the attachment of salaries below Rs. 100 per month would not be of avail to him as he was really drawing an excess of Rs. 72-11-0 per month and in that view directing attachment of Rs. 32-8-0 per month was lawful and justifiable. Mr. Venkatasubramaniam, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that the lower Court erred grievously in holding that “dearness allowance” which is “only a temporary addition to pay” , to meet the increased cost of living, would constitute part of a man’s salary. Mr. P. Narayanaswami, learned counsel for the respondent-wife, urged vigorously that dearness allowance is “temporary salary” added on to the “permanent salary” and is in no way like travelling allowance or house allowance excluded from “salary”. Mr. Venkatasubramaniam confessed th