P. B. MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a short point in execution. The old familiar point is whether attachment is permissible on what is contended to be Provident Fund money. The decree-holder, as now substituted, seeks to attach the amount deposited under the head Deposit Miscellaneous 'e' under T. V. No. 8 of October, 1950 in the name of the judgment-debtor C. Gregory lying with the Divisional Account Officer, Danapur under the final disposal and control of Chief Accounts Officer and Financial Adviser, Eastern Railway formerly E. I. Railway, 17 Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta, and payment of the same to the decree-holder. It is said in column 10 of the Tabular Statement that the amount lying is Rs. 7,381/13/ -. The decree was dated 13-3-1947. It is Unnecessary to go into the records of the long history of unsuccessful attempts at realising this decree. The Judgment-debtor Gregory was a driver under the Railway Administration. I understand he has resigned or retired and is now in Scotland.

( 2 ) THIS sum of money arises out of his Provident Fund with the Railway.

( 3 ) MR. Lahiri who appears for the decree-holder contended that this money was liable to attachment because it had shed its character as Provident Fund by reason of certain facts. Those facts may briefly be stated. On 30-8-1949, it to said that a cheque for Rs. 7,381/13/- was issued in the name of Kashi Prosad Agarwalla and was sent to the Divisional Cashier, E. I. Railway, Danapur. This cheque, however was not actually paid or even delivered to the decree-holder. I need only say that Kashi Prosad Agarwalla, the decree-holder, gave evidence in this matter which was being tried on evidence. One of the points urged in this connection is that the sum of Rs. 5,781/13/- relating to special contribution to Provident Fund was credited by the Railway in the name of Kashi Prosad Agarwalla as Deposit Miscellaneous 'e' under T. V. No. 2 of December, 1949 and Rs. 1,600/- relating to original Provident Fund was credited in the name oi Kashi Prosad Agarwalla in Deposit Miscellaneous P. F. under T. V. No. 2, December, 1949. The second fact on which Mr. Lahiri relies if that there was another attempt to pay by a cheque dated the 26th/27th August 1950 on which date a cheque was made out for payment to Kashi Prosad. That cheque also was never handed over to Kashi Prosad, There was no delivery and no payment to him. Under T. V. No. 8, the sum was kept by the Railway under Miscellaneous Deposit 'e'. '

( 4 ) ON these two facts that there were attempts by the Railways themselves, first, on 30-S-1949 and, secondly, on 25-8-1950 to pay by cheque the sum of money, Mr. Lahiri contends that the Provident Fund has changed its character. For this purpose he relies on the decision of S. R. Das J. , in -- 'central Bank of India Ltd. v. M. V. V. Rao', AIR 1949 Cal 144 (A ). That case, however, is of no assistance to Mr. Lahiri because there the Railway Company had actually issued and delivered to the subscriber a cheque for the Provident Fund amount which became payable to him on his retirement from service. The cheque was in fact in currency because he had endorsed it. Therefore, it was held there that the decree-holder could attach that debt under Order 21, Rule 46. Here this sum of money represents the amount of the Provident Fund of the judgment-debtor Gregory and never left the Railway administration. He never received it in any shape or form nor did he negotiate it in any form. All that the Railway has done is to transfer it from the open Provident Fund Account to the closed Provident Fund Account. Under Rule 1023 appearing at p. 1021 in the Indian Railway Code of Accounts Department, Part I, Second Reprint, it is said in Sub-clause (3) thereof under the head 'miscellaneous'-"under this sub-head are included cash, security deposit, earnest money given by tenderers for contracts, closed accounts of the Provident Fund and defence savings Provind Fund, Court attachment, recoveries, deposits by othe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document