ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) is filed by judgment debtor as against his decree holder challenging the order dated 09.10.2018 of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati in O.E.P.No.9 of 2018 in O.S.No.786 of 2010. By the impugned order, the learned executing Court negatived the objections raised by the judgment debtor and ordered for arrest and detention of judgment debtor in civil prison.

2. Sri Balaji Medamalli, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri O.Udaya Kumar, learned counsel for respondent submitted arguments.

3. O.S.No.786 of 2010 was a suit filed for recovery of a debt of Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest and costs. The suit was laid for a total sum of Rs.2, 58,000/-. Defendant did not choose to contest and was set ex parte. By a judgment dated 22.02.2011 learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati granted judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff.

4. Since the decree directions were not complied with by the defendant, O.E.P.No.45 of 2012 was filed by the decree holder under Order XXI Rule 48 C.P.C. seeking for attachment of salary of defendant/judgment debtor stating that judgment debtor has been working as Senior Assistant in Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam receiving monthly salary. After due enquiry the said execution petition was allowed and the attachment of salary was ordered. The garnishee complied with it for 24 months and remitted the amounts to the civil Court to a tune of Rs.1,20,000/-. Thus, a part of the decree debt stood satisfied by that execution petition. Since there remained overdue amounts to be recovered from judgment debtor, the decree holder chose to file O.E.P.No.9 of 2018 in O.S.No.786 of 2010 under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 C.P.C. seeking for arrest and detention of judgment debtor in civil prison. On receiving the show-cause notice, judgment debtor filed his counter before the executing Court raising his objections. Learned executing Court recorded the evidence of PW.1 and RW.1 during whose evidence Ex.A.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.7 were marked. After hearing arguments on both sides and after adverting to the oral and documentary evidence, the learned executing Court found justification in the prayer for arrest made by the decree holder and recorded that despite having means judgment debtor was neglecting or refusing to pay the outstanding decree debt and therefore ordered for issuance of warrant of arrest against the judgment debtor. It is that order which is challenged in this civil revision petition.

5. All the facts mentioned above have not been disputed by both sides during the hearing of this petition. The submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that while granting interim stay, this Court ordered deposit of 50% of the outstanding dues and the same was complied with and the judgment debtor deposited that 50% with the executing Court. Learned counsel for respondent/D.Hr. admits the correctness of that statement. Thus, what remained is the remaining portion of the decree debt which according to the learned counsels would be somewhere around Rs.1,20,000/-.

6. In this revision judgment debtor contends that he is an employee and the decree holder should have sought for further attachment of salary and recover the balance overdue and instead, he initiated execution for arrest only with a view to harass and cause inconvenience to the judgment debtor.

7. This contention is not tenable by virtue of statutory bar contained in Section 60(1) proviso (i) of Code of Civil Procedure. As per this provision, where an attachment of salary has been made in pursuance of execution of a money decree after attaching the attachable portion for a continuous period of 24 months under the same decree, there shall be no further attachment and recovery from the salary. Therefore, the point urged in the revision about further salary attachment being not possible by virtue of the statutory prescribing this contention is negatived.

8. The other con