The court emphasized the need to consider statutory provisions regarding salary attachment, ensuring adherence to Section 60 of CPC.

02.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT Dated this the 2^nd day of June, 2025 This original petition is filed by the petitioner/

judgment debtor for challenging the order passed by the Munsiff Court, Kothamangalam, in EP.110/2023 in ARC

2329/2016 dated 27.01.2025

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent filed an arbitration case and obtained the award and filed E.P 110/2023 for attaching the salary of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an objection before the court under Section 60 of CPC. But the objection was not properly considered by the trial court and passed the order of attachment. Accordingly, three months’ salary has been attached. Therefore, the trial court ought to have given time gap as per (1 (a)(i), but the same was not considered. Therefore, prayed for set aside the same.

4. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that some more debt is also there, the SBI has also filed an application for attaching the salary. Such being the case, granting continuous attachment of the salary of the petitioner is not correct, hence prayed for the dismissal of the same.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no error in the order passed by the trial court, hence prayed for the dismissal of the same.

6. Having considered the arguments and perused the records. The trial court, while passing the order, nothing mentioned about the proviso to Section 60 (1)(a) (i) CPC in respect of a separate provision provided for attaching the salary of the person/judgment debtor. The same was not properly considered. Therefore, the trial court required to consider the proviso to Sub (1)(a) (i) of CPC which is as under;

“(i) salary to the extent of [the first [one thousand rupees] and two-thirds of the remainder] [in execution of any decree other than a decree for main-tenance]:

[PROVIDED that where any part of such portion of the salary as is liable to attachment has been under attachment, whether continuously or inter-mittently, for a total period of twenty-four months, such portion shall be exempt from attachment until the expiry of a further period of twelve months, and, where such attachment has been made in execution of one and the same decree, shall, after the attachment has continued for a total period of twenty- four months, be finally exempt from attachment in execution of that decree;]”

7. On perusal of the order under challenge, there is no such consideration by the trial court therefore, the matter required to be remitted back for fresh consideration.

Accordingly, this original petition is allowed. The order of the trial court dated 27.01.2025 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial court for fresh consideration by keeping in mind that any other recovery applications or EP filed as against the petitioner, and pass order in accordance with the law as stated above.