The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Provident Fund contributions of the deceased-subscriber are exempt from attachment under S.3(2) of the Provident Funds Act, 1925 and S.60(1)(k) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Narayana Kurup, J.

Plaintiff is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the order of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kozhikode in LA. No. 1750 of 1993 in O.S. No. 421 of 1993 disallowing attachment for a sum of Rs. 50.000/- being the Provident Fund contributions of one (late) Basil Manakkal (hereinafter referred to as the Subscriber) and held in deposit by the State Bank of India, Kozhikode where he was employed.

2. Facts:- The suit was laid against the respondents who arc the legal representatives of the subscriber who died on 12.6.1993 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 83,965/- with future interest and costs on the ground that the Subscriber, the predecessor of the respondents had borrowed from the appellant - plaintiff a sum of Rs. 70,000/- during his life time and had issued cheques for the said amount and the cheque were dishonoured for want of funds when the appellant presented them for encashment. Along with the suit, the appellant filed I.A.I 750 of 1993 praying for attachment of a sum of Rs, 50,000/- held by the State Bank of India, Kozhikode wherein the subscriber was employed, as amounts payable to the legal representatives from out of the Provident Fund of the subscriber and a sum of Rs, 45,000/- kept in the bank as National Savings Certificates purchased by the said subscriber. The application for attachment was opposed by the respondents and the court below passed an order of attachment for a sum of Rs, 45,000/- due as per the National Savings Certificate. As regards the sum of Rs. 50,000/- which was due as the Provident Fund dues of the subscriber to be paid over to the legal representatives, the court below negatived the claim for attachment on the ground that S.60,000 of the Code of Civil Procedure exempts for attachment all compulsory deposits and other sums in or derived from my fund to which the Provident Funds Act, 1925 for trie time being applies in so far as they are declared by the said Act not liable to attachment. It is that part of the order that is challenged by the plaintiff in this appeal

3. When the appeal was initially heard, a learned single judge of this court, taking note of the decisions reported in Madhavan Nambiar v. Syndicate Bank (1991 (2) KLT 127) mA Sathyavathi v. bhargavi (1991 (1) KLT 866) took the view that a question of some importance arises in this case and the case requires authoritative pronouncement by a Division Bench and in that view adjourned the case for being heard by a Division Bench. It was under the above circumstances that this appeal has come up before us for hearing,

4. Heard counsel on both sides. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the order of the court below negativing the claim for attachment of a sum of Rs. 50,000/- being Provident Fund contribution of the subscriber and held in deposit by the State Bank of India where the subscriber was employed on the ground that the said sum was exempted from attachment under S.60(1)(k) of the Code of Civil Procedure is valid. The question has to be answered with reference to the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, S.3(2) of the Provident Funds Act, 1925 (for short 'the act) and the relevant Rules and all other attendant facts and circumstances.

5. It is beyond the pale of any controversy that the amount sought to be attached represents the Provident Fund Contribution of the subscriber and payable under the Rules of the Fund namely; the State Bank of India Employee's Provident Fund Rules to the dependant of the subscriber. In this context, a reference to S.3(2) of the Act is necessary. S.3(2) of the Act reads as follows:

"3(2). Any sum standing to the credit of any subscriber to, or depositor in, any such fund at the time of his decease and payable under 'the rules of the Fund to any dependant of the subscriber or depositor, or to such person as may be authorised by law to receive payment on his behalf, shall, subject to any deduction authorised by this Act and,