UNION OF INDIA Vs. HIRA DEBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Union of India against an order of Banerjee J., dated 19-12-1949, dismissing an application made pro interesse suo on behalf of the Dominion of India. The only question involved in this appeal is whether a Receiver can be appointed by way of equitable execution in respect of money standing to the credit of a subscriber to a provident fund. The answer to the question depends on the construction of Section 3, Provident Funds Act, 1925 (XIX [19] of 1925). Banerjee J. held that a Receiver can be appointed in a suitable case over provident fund money.

(2.) The facts out of which this appeal arises may be shortly stated. On 30-7-1948, a decree was made by this Court in this suit in favour of Hira Debi for Rs. 3,317 with interest and costs. On 17-12-1948, the decree-holder applied for execution of the decree by appointment of a Receiver of the amount lying to the credit of the provident fund of the judgment-debtor, Ram Garhit Singh, with the Post Master General, Bengal Circle, and with the Deputy Accountant General, Posts and Telegraphs, Calcutta. The judgment, debtor was a clerk in the dead letter office and had retired in January 1947. On 1-2-1949, Banerjee J. made an order whereby the decree-holders' husband, Baramdeo Pandey, was appointed Receiver in execution of the said sum, subject to his furnishing security. No objection to the order has been raised on behalf of the judgment-debtor. On 16-9-1949, a summons was taken out on behalf of the Dominion of India for setting aside the order on the ground that it was invalid inasmuch as a Receiver cannot be appointed in respect of provident fund money.

(3.) Section 3, Provident Funds Act, is in the following terms :