THOMAS GEORGE Vs. SOUDAMINI MANAKKAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the order of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kozhikode in I. A. No. 1750 of 1993 in O. S. No. 421 of 1993 disallowing attachment for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- being the Provident Fund contributions of one (late) Basil Manakkal (hereinafter referred to as the subscriber) and held in deposit by the State Bank of India, Kozhikode where he was employed.

(2.) FACTS:- The suit was laid against the respondents who are the legal respersentatives of the subscriber who died on June 12, 1993 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 83,965/-with future interest and cost on the ground that the Subscriber, the predecessor of the respondents had borrowed from the appellant - plaintiff a sum of Rs. 70,000/- during his life time and had issued cheques for the said amount and the cheques were dishonored for want of funds when the appellant presented them for encashment. Along with the suit the appellant field I. A. 1750 of 1993 praying for attachment of a sum Rs. 50,000/-held by the State Bank of India, Kozhikode wherein the subscriber was employed, as amounts payable to the legal representatives from out of the Provident Fund of subscriber and a sum of Rs. 45,000/- kept in the bank as National Savings Certificates purchased by the said subscriber. The application for attachment was opposed by the respondents and the Court below passed an order of attachment for a sum of Rs. 45,000/- due as per the National Savings Certificate. As regrade the sum of Rs. 50,000/- which was due as the Provident Fund dues of the subscriber to be paid over to the legal representatives, the court below negatived the Claim for attachment on the ground that Section 60 (i) (k) of the Code of Civil Procedure exempts for attachment all compulsory deposits and other sums in or derived from any fund to which the Provident Funds Act, 1925 for the time being applies in so far as they are declared by the said Act not liable to attachment. It is that part of the order that is challenged by the plaintiff in this appeal.

(3.) WHEN the appeal was initially heard, a learned Single Judge of this court taking note of the decisions reported in Madhavan Nambiar v Syndicate Bank 1991 (2) KLT 127 and Sathyavathi v. Bhargavi 1991 (1) KLT 866 took the view that the question of some importance arises in this case and the case requires authoritative pronouncement by a Division Bench and in that view adjourned the case for being heard by a Division Bench. It was under the above circumstances that this appeal has come up before us for hearing.