JUDGMENT

The question that arises for consideration is whether the recovery of debt by attachment of salary of the petitioner can be in excess of the limits provided under Section 60 (1)(i) of the CPC. The petitioner has relied on the decision of this court reported in Bhargavan Pillai vSpecial Deputy Tahsildar ( 2003(3) KLT 753 ) in support of his contention that the recovery cannot be in excess of the limits provided under (1)(i) of the CPC read with Section 80 of the Revenue Recovery Act . On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Sukumaran vKSRTC reported in( 2002(3) KLT 169 ) where under this Court has held that (i) of the CPC is not applicable for recovery against the surety. However, surprisingly, the Division Bench has not referred to Section 80 of the which incorporates (1)(i) of the CPC. Therefore, I am unable to follow the Division Bench judgment. It is admitted that recovery proceedings against the petitioner is initiated under the . Therefore I do not find any justification for permitting with the recovery in violation of Section 80 of the . The purpose of Section 80 obviously is to provide to preserv