JANCY SEBASTIAN Vs. SIDO MOHAN KERALA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of attachment of salary issued by the execution court is under challenge in this proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India initiated at the instance of the judgment-debtor.

(2.) On behalf of the learned counsel for the judgment-debtor, a very fervent request was made for adjournment. The request is opposed by Mr.M.A.Manhu, Standing Counsel for the respondent- Corporation who submits that the petitioner is a Professor in the Government Engineering College and what has been ordered to be attached is even less than what is attachable in terms of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) On going through the Memorandum of Writ Petition, I find that the ground which is prominently urged is that Ext.P3 order is a non-speaking order which does not refer to Section 60 of the Code at all. It is true that Section 60 of the C.P.C. is not referred to in Ext.P3 and the learned Sub Judge has not found that what is ordered to be attached is the attachable portion under that Section. But having regard to the undisputed position that the petitioner is a Professor in the Government Engineering College, I do not find any difficulty to accept the submission of Mr.Manhu, Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation that the attachable salary of the petitioner should be around what is ordered to be attached. I find that this Court granted stay on condition that the petitioner remits a sum of Rs.3000/- within 10 days and obviously that condition was complied with. Mr.Manhu submits that he has no information as to whether the subsequent condition that a further amount shall be paid has been complied with.