SECY OF STATE Vs. HAR CHARAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 25., Small Cause Courts Act, for the revision of an order of the Judge of the Small Cause Court of Bareilly, directing the attachment of deposits amounting to Rs. 450 in the execution of a decree against one Gulzari Lal. The application, however, is made on behalf of the Secretary of State. Gulzari Lal was a clerk in the Collector's office in Pilibhit, and he was a subscriber to the General Provident Fund. He has now retired. A decree was obtained against him by one Har Charan Das in the Small Cause Court of Bareilly and it is in the execution of this decree that the present question has arisen. The Judge has complied with the decree-holder's application to attach money lying to the credit of Gulzari Lal in the General Provident Fund, and an objection was made by the Pay and Accounts Officer, U.P. that the deposit was not liable to attachment. That objection has, however, been overruled by the Court below.

(2.) It has been pointed out by the learned Government Advocate that under Section 2, Provident Funds Act, 1925, a compulsory deposit is not until the happening of some specified contingency, repayable on demand otherwise than for the purpose of the payment of premia &c. and under Section 3(1) of the same Act a compulsory deposit shall not in any way be capable of being assigned or charged and shall not be liable to attachment under any decree or, order of any civil, revenue or criminal Court in respect of any debt or liability incurred by the subscriber or depositor....

(3.) Under Clause (k) of Section 60, Civil P.C., again "all compulsory deposits and other sums in or derived from any fund to which the Provident Funds Act, 1897, for the time being applies in so far as they are declared by the said Act not to be liable to attachment" are specifically exempted from attachment.