Under challenge is Ext.P5 proceedings in O.S. 327 of 2009 by the Sub Court, Kozhikode ordering attachment of salary of the petitioner.
2. The facts fall within a narrow compass. The petitioner stood as a surety for one of the debtors and suffered a decree. In execution the Bank proceeded against the petitioner and sought to attach her salary and the attachment order was passed.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that actually she is not liable to pay the amount as she stood only as a surety and she paid a sum of Rs.70,000/-. The petitioner submitted that salary is not liable for attachment and she is willing for an one time settlement which may be considered by this Court.
O.P.(C).1299/2014. 2
4. The Bank was directed to ascertain whether it is willing for an one time settlement and they represent that if the petitioner is willing to pay Rs.48,240/- immediately and the balance sum of Rs.1,12,557/- or on before 28.2.;2015, the Bank is prepared to endorse that the decree is satisfied.
5. It may be noticed here that the E.P. amount as on date of the filing of the E.P. was Rs.2,38,161/-. When the above suggestion was put to the petitioner, the petitioner was not interested in accepting the same and submitted that she is unable to pay the amount.
6. It is trite that the Bank may proceed against the debtors and it cannot be said that the attachment of the salary is illegal or improper or not in accordance with the provisions of law.
O.P.(C).1299/2014. 3 This Original Petition is without merits and it is accordingly dismissed.
P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.