Principles underlying the provisions of Stamp Act to be followed.

This Civil Revision Petition raises the question whether a railwav company can raise an objection under section 60, Civil Procedure Code to the attachment of the provident fund amount payable to one of its employees.The first respondent who obtained a money decree against the second respondent who was an employee in the Madras and Southern Maharatta Railway Co applied to the Court of the District Munsiff of Vizagapatam for a prohibitory order directine the petitioner to attach the amount due to the judgment-debtor from out of the provident fund that the judgment-debtor was entitled to from the railway company on his retirement. The District Munsiff directed the attachment of Rs. 503-5-4 and this order of attachment was made absolute on 22nd April, 1946. The railwav company, as garnishee thereupon filed an application for raising the attachment under section 60, Civil Procedure Code, on the ground that according to the Provident Funds Act, the provident fund payable to the judgment-debtor was exempt from attachment. Though notice was served on the judgment-debtor he did not appear in Court and raise any objection to the attachment claiming exemption under section 60, Civil Procedure Code. The District Munsiff dismissed the application filed by the railway company holding that the exemption can be claimed only by the judgment-debtor and if for some reason or other the judgment-debtor did not choose to take advantage of the privilege no one else was entitled to claim the benefit of the provisions under section 60, Civil Procedure Code He also observed that if the judgment-debtor exercised his right under section 60 Civil Procedure Code, then the Court was bound to raise the attachment. In support of this view he relied upon a decision of the Lahore High Court in Bhagu v Batna Singh1. It is against this order of the District Munsiff of Vizagapatam that the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Madras and Southern Maharatta Railway Company.

It is necessary before I deal with the question raised and the authorities cited before me to refer to the proviso to section 60, Civil Procedure Code which lays down that:

“Provided that the following particulars shall not be liable to such attachment or sale,namely.....(A) all compulsory deposits and other sums in or derived from any fund to which the provident Funds Act (1925) for the time being applies in so far as they are declared by the said Act not to be liable to attachment;”

Section 3 of the Provident Funds Act enacts:

“A compulsory deposit in any Government or Railway Provident Fund 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, and neither the Official Assignee nor any receiver appointed under the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, shall be entitled to, or have any claim, on any such compulsory deposit.”

It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law on an erroneous view of the law and he also maintained that the decision relied on by the trial Court is distinguishable on the facts of that case. In support of his contention that the railway company also could take objection to the attachment of the provident fund payable to the judgment-debtor he cited to me two cases, one reported in Rajendra Kumar v. Central Government1 and the other in the Postmaster General, Bombay v. Chenmal Mayachand2. In Rajendra Kumar v. Central Government1, the salary due to an employee of the post office was attached and on an objection taken by the Government that the salary was not attachable having regard to the provisions of section 60, Civil Procedure Code, the attachment was raised. In dealing with the contention that the Government was not entitled to raise the objection regarding the attachment of the salary the