Punjab & Haryana High Court Clarifies 24-Month Salary Attachment Rule Under Section 60 CPC; Upholds Execution of MACT Award
Case Name: Jarnail Singh v. Nand Lal Sharma and Others
Date of Judgment: 27 July 2026
Citation: CR-5626-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harsh Bunger
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that an Executing Court does not act illegally by directing attachment of one-third of a judgment-debtor’s salary for satisfaction of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award merely because Section 60(1)(i) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, prescribes that the attachable portion of salary cannot remain under attachment beyond twenty-four months in execution of the same decree. The Court observed that the statutory protection becomes relevant only after the attachable portion has actually remained under attachment for the prescribed period.
Summary: The civil revision petition arose from execution proceedings initiated to enforce a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award dated 27 April 2022. The petitioner, against whom the award had been passed, had already challenged the award before the High Court by filing a First Appeal from Order, which remained pending. During the pendency of that appeal, the decree-holders initiated execution proceedings, whereupon the Executing Court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga, to ensure that one-third of the petitioner’s monthly salary was deposited every month into the bank accounts of the decree-holders until the decretal amount was fully satisfied. Aggrieved by this direction, the petitioner approached the High Court by way of the present revision petition.
The sole contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner was that the Executing Court’s direction permitting attachment of one-third of his salary until complete satisfaction of the decree was contrary to the second proviso to Section 60(1)(i) of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the petitioner, the statutory scheme expressly prohibits attachment of the same attachable portion of salary beyond a cumulative period of twenty-four months, and therefore the execution order deserved to be set aside.
While examining the issue, the High Court reproduced the relevant provisions of Section 60(1)(i) CPC and considered the interpretation placed upon the provision by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in V. Sreeja v. R.G. Sharma. The Court noted that the Kerala High Court had clarified that the statutory exemption applies only to the particular portion of salary that has actually remained under attachment for twenty-four months. The exemption does not permanently immunize future increases in salary or newly attachable portions from execution. Such an interpretation harmonises the language of the proviso with the legislative intent and prevents judgment-debtors from claiming perpetual immunity merely because an earlier portion of their salary had remained under attachment.
Applying these principles, the High Court observed that the impugned execution order directing attachment of salary had been passed only on 2 July 2026. Consequently, the statutory period of twenty-four months contemplated under Section 60(1)(i) CPC had not even commenced in any meaningful sense, much less expired. The Court therefore held that the petitioner’s challenge was premature, as the statutory protection relied upon had not yet become operative. The Court nevertheless clarified that the execution proceedings would remain subject to Section 60(1)(i) CPC and the interpretation laid down in V. Sreeja if, at a later stage, the circumstances contemplated by the statute were attracted.
Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the civil revision petition and upheld the Executing Court’s direction requiring one-third of the petitioner’s monthly salary to be deposited towards satisfaction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The Court held that the challenge based upon the twenty-four-month limitation under Section 60(1)(i) of the Code of Civil Procedure was premature because the attachment had only recently begun. However, it clarified that the execution proceedings would remain governed by the statutory safeguards contained in Section 60 CPC and the principles enunciated in V. Sreeja v. R.G. Sharma whenever the prescribed statutory period becomes applicable.