HIGH COURT OF KERALA
HARUN-UL-RASHID, J
R.K.BEENA – Appellant
Versus
SASIDHARAN – Respondent
WP(C)/11058/2009
Execution - Salary Attachment - Code of Civil Procedure - Section 60 (1)(i) - Court interpreted Section 60 (1)(i) as a prohibition against salary attachment for more than 24 months in execution of a decree, leading to the decision to halt further deductions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner is a judgment debtor facing salary attachment for execution of a decree over an extended period, exceeding the 24-month limit stipulated in law.
Issues: Whether the continuous attachment of salary beyond 24 months in execution proceedings is permissible under the law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 60(1)(i) of the Code of Civil Procedure is mandatory, prohibiting salary attachment beyond the specified period.
Final Decision: Writ petition allowed; salary attachment beyond 24 months prohibited.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is the judgment debtor in the execution proceedings in O.S.No.464 of 1998 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Karunagappally. Ext.P1 is the decree and Ext.P2 is the execution petition. The prayer in Ext.P2 is one for realisation of the amount by attachment of the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs.2,100/- per month. Ext.P3 is an application submitted by the decree holder. From Ext.P3 it is seen that an amount of Rs.22,025/- has been recovered from the salary of the petitioner commencing from 7.11.2000 to 28.8.2001. Similarly, from Ext.P4 it is seen that a sum of Rs.22,620/- has been recovered from the salary of the petitioner commencing from 4.10.2001 to 7.10.2002. Ext.P5 shows that an amount of Rs.16,965/- has been recovered from the salary of the petitioner commencing from 6.11.2002 to 4.7.2003. From Exts.P3 to P5 it can be seen that the salary of the petitioner was attached for a period of 32 months. Ext.P6 is the subsequent E.P filed for realisation of the balance decree amount of Rs.1,11,660/-. The prayer in Ext.P6 is to attach salary of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the ::2::
petitioner submitted that a sum of Rs.1,500/- is being attached every month from the salary of the petitioner in terms of Ext.P7.
2. Learned counsel pointed out that it is mandatory not to attach salary of a person in execution of one decree for more than 24 months. This Court in the decision reported inSuseela v. Inasu ( 2007(4) KLT 692 ) held that Section 60 (1)(i) is mandatory. The court shall not attach the salary of a person in execution of the decree for more than 24 months. So it is clear that after a period of 24 months there is total prohibition of attachment of the salary.
3. In this case as stated in the preceding paragraphs the attachment continued for a longer period more than 24 months. In the circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to reliefs sought for in the writ petition. There will be a direction to the Munsiff Court, Karunagappally not to effect any recovery anymore from the salary of the petitioner in execution of Ext.P1 decree.
Writ petition is allowed.
HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge.
bkn/-
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.