Jagannath Thirani vs Tara Prasanna Ganguli

Mullick, J.—The question in this application for revision is whether a certain amount of money which lies to the credit of the judgment-debtor, Tara Prasanna Ganguli, in the General Provident Fund can be attached in execution of a decree obtained against him by the petitioner Jagannath Thirani. The Subordinate Judge at first issued a notice of attachment upon the Accountant-General in whose custody the fund is, bat in consequence of an objection by the Secretary of State, he has withdrawn the notice.

The present application is made by the decreeholder for the exercise of our powers u/s 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.

The judgment-debtor who was a nazir in the Civil Court at Kishenganj in the district of Purnea was an optional subscriber within the meaning of Rule 3 of the Rules regulating the General Provident Fund; but it seems that the deposits were not capable of withdrawal except under Rules 10, 15, and 18. In my opinion the deposits were compulsory deposits within the meaning of Section 2 of the Provident Fund Act (Act IX of 1897 as amended by Act IV of 1903), the test being whether the money is repayable on demand or at the option of the subscriber or depositor.

The next question is whether u/s 1 of the Act the deposits are exempt from attachment by the Civil Court. The Act is peremptory and clear and Section 60 of the CPC does not stand in the way. Reference has been made to Rule 10 of the rules regulating the Fund, but, in my opinion, that Rule in so far as it refers to notices of attachment is ultra vires. If; is noticeable that although reference is made in the Act to Rules relating to the Fund there is no express provision in the Act conferring power to frame rules. In my opinion, it is competent for Government to issue rules relating to the internal management of the fund, but the Act does not empower Government to prescribe by rules the procedure which shall be followed for the recovery of debts due by depositors for which a decree has been obtained in the Civil Court; and this is the view that has been taken in Veerchand Nowla v. B.B. &. C. I. Railway Co. (1905) 29 Bom. 259, C.D.M. Hindley v. Joynarain Marwari (1919) 46 Cal. 962 and Secretary of State v. Raj Kumar Mukerji (1923) Cal. 585.

The result, therefore, is that the application will be dismissed with costs.

Bucknill, J.

I agree.