Bapna, J. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal, by the judgment debtor in execution proceedings.
(2.) THE respondent obtained a decree for recovery of Rs. 292/14/- on 17th August, 1938 and thereafter in execution proceedings, the decree holder and the judgment debtor made a settlement by which the decree became payable by instalments subject to certain conditions, one of which was that the decree holder was declared to be entitled to interest at 12% pet year on the decretal amount although no interest was provided under the decree. On 1st September, 1948 the decree holder took out execution for the balance of the amount remaining unpaid under the decree, together with interest at 12% per year according to the settlement. THE judgment debtor objected firstly on the ground that the decree having been adjusted by settlement, it became satisfied. THE other objection was that the prayer for attachment of salary of the judgment debtor should not be accepted as his salary was Rs. 95/- and under the Indian Civil Procedure Code which came into force on 25th January 1950, the salary to the extent of first Rs. 100/- was exempted from attachment. THE trial court over-ruled the plea of adjustment and in respect of the second plea, it was held that the Code applicable was the one in force at the time of the institution of the suit and the Bikaner Civil Procedure Code which was then in force fixed the exemption limit at Rs. 40/- and half of the salary in excess of Rs. 40/- was liable to attachment under that Code. THE judgment debtor filed an appeal which was dismissed. In the second appeal, the same two objections are reiterated. As regards the first objection it has no force since only the mode of payment of decree was changed but the decree remained unsatisfied as before. As regards the objection against interest, that could only be dealt with when accounts would be taken after payment of the decretal amount. As regards the other objection, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Indian Code of Civil Procedure became applicable from the 25th January 1950 and it repealed the old Code which no longer now remains in force and cannot be relied upon in this case. While it is true that vested rights cannot be affected by any charge in law unless there is provision to that effect, there is no vested right in following any particular procedure. The decree holder's right to proceed against any property is not any vested right, but he has to seek his remedy according to law for the time being in force. There can be no vested right of the decree holder to proceed against any particular property unless there is charge created by the decree. In the present case, after the enforcement of the Indian C. P. C. on 25th January, 1950, the salary of the judgment debtor to the extent of the first Rs. 100/- was exempted and only half of the remainder could be attached. The two courts have not come to a right decision and this appeal must succeed. The appeal is, therefore, accepted and the order of attachment of the salary below Rs 100/- is set aside. The decree holler may seek his remedy in other ways as he may be justified under the law. No order as to costs. .;