SHER BEHUDOOR Vs. PASUPATHY UPADHYAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment debtor in a suit for recovery of certain amounts from the defendant is the revision petitioner. The suit was decreed ex parte as prayed for. In execution of the decree, attachment of the salary of the revision petitioner was ordered by the court. A sum of Rs. 35/- per mensem used to be deducted from the salary of the revision petitioner by the employer and deposited in court in partial discharge of the amount due under the decree from the revision petitioner. This revision arises out of an order allowing the respondent herein to withdraw the amount lying in deposit.

(2.) Sri. M. S. Kurien, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner argues that this order is not sustainable, as it is passed in violation of the protective provisions contained in S.60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The contention of the learned counsel is that, in all, the revision petitioner gets only Rs. 286/- per mensem, and out of that a sum of Rs. 243/- is not attachable in terms of clause (i) of sub-s.(1) of S.60 CPC.

(3.) It is also submitted that independently of the exemption granted under clause (i) of sub-s.(1) of S.60, the revision petitioner is entitled to claim exemption of certain other amounts out of Rs. 43/- left, in view of the provisions contained in clause (k) of the same sub-section. Clause (k) of sub-s.(1) of S.60 reads as follows: