CRP. No.3628 of 2024 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.07.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI CRP. No.3628 of 2024 Muthuselvan @ Muthuselvam ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1.Selvan 2.The Head Master, Government Higher Sec. School, Udukkampalayam, Udumalpet Taluk. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside the fair and final order passed in E.P. No.30 of 2022 in O.S. No.30 of 2018 on the file of the Sub-Court, Udumalpet, dated 29.04.2024. For Petitioner(s): Mr.B.Vijayakumar For Respondent(s): Mr.N.Thiagarajan ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of attachment passed by the Executing Court, directing attachment of a sum of Rs.33,000/-. The learned counsel would state that only an attachment of 1/3rd of the take home salary of the petitioner could have been rightly and lawfully attached by the Executing https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP. No.3628 of 2024 __________ Page2 of 4 Court. The learned counsel would also bring to my notice that the take home salary as Rs.66,256/- and therefore, the order of the Executing Court directing attachment of almost half the amount is not permissible under Order 21, Rule 56 CPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for the order of attachment restricting into Rs.22,000/- per month. 3.The learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder, Mr.N.Thiyagarajan, would fairly states that the decree amount due as on date is Rs.11,98,000/- and it is needless to state that further interest and costs will also accrue on the said amount. He would further state that Order 21, Rule 48 CPC, will not apply to the case on hand and therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Court below, warranting interference in revision. 4. However, it is an admitted case where the petitioner is a Government Servant, serving as a Head Master of a Government Institution and therefore, he cannot fall back on Section 60(i)(a) of CPC and Order 21 Rule 48 CPC. As rightly pointed out by Mr.Thiyagarajan, Section 60(i) proviso (i) CPC, alone would apply and the salary of the petitioner to the extent of first Rs.1,000/- and 2/3rd of the remainder is liable to be attached. 5. In such view of the above, I do not see any merit in the revision petition. The Executing Court has directed attachment of Rs.33,000/- alone, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP. No.3628 of 2024 __________ Page3 of 4 which is well within the permissible limit of Section 60(i) of CPC and there is no interference is warranted in the order passed by the Sub Judge, Udumalpet in E.P. No.30 of 2022 in O.S. No.30 of 2018, dated 29.04.2024. 6. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. 22-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKP To The Sub Judge, Udumalpet. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP. No.3628 of 2024 __________ Page4 of 4 P.B.BALAJI.J., rkp CRP. No.3628 of 2024 22.07.2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis