ORDER

S.K. Ghose, J. - The petitioners in this Rule are the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta and the Rule relates to an application u/s 25, Provincial Small Cause Court Act. The circumstances are these : Opposite party No. 1 obtained an ex parte decree against opposite party No. 2 in the Court of Small Causes at Sealdah for Rs. 70-9-0. On 26th September 1936 the decree was put into execution in the said Court and the decree-holder prayed for recovery by attachment of the wages of the judgment-debtor he being a Mistri on S.S. Thistle at Dock No. 11 of the Calcutta Port Commissioners and drawing a salary of Rs. 75 a month. In accordance with the prayer, the salary of opposite party no. 2 was attached and the attachment was notified by the Court to the petitioners under whom the opposite party no. 2 was then employed as a driver on a tug vessel called the Pilot. It is stated by the petitioners that both s.s. Thistle and the vessel Pilot are used in navigation and propelled by steam and not exclusively by oars. The petitioners informed the Court that the wages of opposite party no. 2 could not be attached as he was a seaman under the Indian Merchant Shipping Act (Act 21 of 1923 I. C.) and also referred to Section 2 (8) and Section 62 (1) (a) of the said Act, in the correspondence that followed. Opposite party no. 2 filed a petition in the execution case stating that he is a seaman u/s 2 (8), Merchant Shipping Act, and as such his wages are not attachable. On 3rd April 1937, the Court rejected the petition of the opposite party no. 2 holding that his salary is not exempted from attachment. Thereafter by a letter dated 19th April 1937 the said Court directed the petitioners to send the attached sum to the Court. Against that direction, the present Rule is obtained.

2. It is stated in the application that the question as to whether the said opposite party no. 2 is a seaman and whether the wages of a seaman are attachable under the said Indian Merchant Shipping Act is of great importance to the petitioners and an authoritative decision would be to the benefit of all parties concerned. The petitioners also stated that having regard to the provisions of Section 62 (d), Merchant Shipping Act, the order of attachment and the direction to pay into Court have put the petitioners in a precarious and anomalous position. For the opposite party, decree-holder, it is contended in this Court that the petitioners have no locus standi to make this application as they were no parties to the decree. But the petitioners have already received a direction from the lower Court in, accordance with the provisions of Order 21, Rule 48, Civil P.C. and under Sub-rule (3), the petitioners would be held liable for any sum paid in contravention of the direction. Therefore it cannot be said that the petitioners have no grievance and it must be held that they have locus standi to make the application. The real point is whether u/s 62 (1) (a) and (d) the wages of opposite party no. 2 are liable to attachment. It is contended for the petitioners that opposite party no. 2 is a seaman as defined in Section 2 (8) of the Act. The question is whether the tug Pilot can answer to the word ship' as used in this definition. Both words 'ship' and 'vessel' are defined in the General Clauses Act and this definition corresponds to the definition of those words occurring in the English Merchant Shipping Act of 1894. The question seems to turn upon whether the tug vessels can be said to be used for the purpose of navigation. It is stated in the counter-affidavit which is not challenged that the tug vessels Thistle and Pilot are not steamships nor do they ever go to sea; they only tow ships within the Kidderpore Dockyard by means of a rope whenever any ship enters the said port either for repairs or for loading and unloading. It has been contended by the learned advocate for opposite party no. 1 that to satisfy the essentials of navigation, the ship must be seagoing and must ca