V V SUBBA RAO Vs. MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge, Guntur, given on 23rd March, 1963. The respondent, who is the decree-holder, filed an execution petition for the realisation of the decretal amount. He sought the attachment of the salary of the judgment-debtor who is admittedly not a public servant, but a private servant. The judgment-debtor took an objection in the Court below that his salary cannot be attached under section 60 (i) of the Civil Procedure Code in advance. Rejecting that contention the Subordinate Judge held that the attachment takes effect and will be operative only with reference to the actual date of payment as the deduction is only made on the date of payment. It is this view of the Subordinate Judge which is assailed before me.

(2.) The contention of Mr. Dhanurbhanudu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that in view of the language of section 60 (i) read with the first Explanation^ that section anticipatory attachment in regard to salaries payable to private servants cannot be issued. I find sufficient force in this contention. In order to appreciate the merits of this contention it is essential to look into section 60 (i) and the first Explanation. Section 60 first enumerates the property which is liable to be attached and sold in execution of a decree. Proviso to that section however mentions properties which cannot be attached or sold. In that category of properties exempted from attachment the provision (i) is in the following terms: " Salary to the extent of the first hundred rupees and one half the remainder in execution of any decree other than a decree for maintenance ; "

(3.) I am not concerned with the Proviso to sub-section (i). The first Explanation is in the following terms :