GURNAM SINGH, J. - (1.) THE Civil Revision is directed against the order of Sub -Judge II Class Kurukshetra dated 3rd March, 1977 vide which, the application of the judgment -debtor petitioner that his salary, which was less than Rs. 400/ - per month not attachable under the provisions of law, has been rejected and an order for attaching his salary in accordance with the provisions of Civil Procedure Code has been ordered to be issued. The respondent or his counsel is not present. Therefore, this order will be ex parte order against the respondent.
(2.) THE main ground on which the application of the judgment -debtor was rejected is that the amended Civil Procedure Code was not applicable to the controversy in question, as the same is not retrospective in nature. From the persual of the order under revision, it is apparent that earlier to the date of the impugned order, no attachment could be issued, as process -fee was not filed. The attachment was ordered to be issued on 3rd March, 1977 COde of Civil Procedure (Amendment Act No. 104 of 1976) came into force on February 1, 1977. Under section 97(g) in Chapter V of the amending Act of the Civil Procedure Code under the heading Repeal and Savings, it has been provided that the provisions of section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code as amended by section 23 of the Amending Act shall not apply to any attachment made before the commencement of section 23 of the Amending Act. This means that the amended section 60. Civil Procedure Code, will apply to the attachments made after the commencement of the Amending Act, i.e. February, 1 1977, In Sheo Baran Singh v. Mohan Lal Driver, A.I.R. 1968 All. 147, the salary of the judgment debtor which was above Rs. 100/ - but below Rs. 200/ - was attached in pursuance of a decree before the amendment of section 60, Civil Procedure Code and after the amendment the judgment debtor applied for exemption from attachment on the ground that the amendment had retrospective effect and as such his salary which fell below the limit of Rs. 400/ - fixed by the Amending Act, is to be released and it was held that section 60, Civil Procedure Code as amended did not have any retrospective effect and since the salary was attachable every month after it accured, after the amendment could not be attached. The attachments made prior to the amendment were, however, held valid.
(3.) THUS the salary of the judgment -debtor upto Rs. 400/ - could be attached after February 1, 1977. In the application the judgment -debtor has averred that his basic pay less than Rs. 400/ - per month. This contention of his was not controverted by the decree holder. Thus there is no reason to disbelieve the judgment -debtor that his basic pay was less than Rs. 400/ -. Any allowances allowed to the judgment debtor by the Government which are allowed for specific purposes cannot constitute the basic pay of a man as held in Lakshmi Narain v. Man Singh, (1972)74 P.L.R.D. 211.;