The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the attachment of the revision petitioner's salary, noting the lack of proof regarding subsisting attachment under Section 60 CPC and absence of merits.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions to be closed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3550 of 2012
ORDER:
Heard.
There are absolutely no merits in the revision. Admittedly, the revision petitioner is employed. It is needless to say that the attachment of the salary shall be subject to Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure and there is no proof that there is any subsisting attachment of the salary.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, filed in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO,J
06th August, 2012. Tsy
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the attachment of the revision petitioner's salary is sustainable in the absence of proof of subsisting attachment under Section 60 CPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
N.R.L. Nageswara Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
