Krishna Iyer, J. - (1.) The moral of this case is that a short cut may often be a wrong cut - in law, as in life. The ratio of this appeal is that technicality will not triumph in courts of law and justice, where substantial public policy is involved and it is such public policy which humanistically protects provident fund and pensionary dues of government servants from claims of judgment-creditors to attach in satisfaction of decrees.
(2.) The appellant, the Union of India, has come up in appeal, by special leave, challenging a laconic order of dismissal in Civil Revision made by the Delhi High Court, thus upholding the view of the executing court overrulling the contention of the State, objecting to the attachment of certain provident fund and pension dues held by Union of India (on behalf of the Rajya Sabha Secretariat) in trust for the judgment- debtor who had been employed in the Rajya Sabha Secretariat. The first court had held that the Union of India had no locus standi to object to the attachment, by the decree-holder on the score that an outsider to the suit without 'interest in the attached money' has standing to intervene to dispute the attachability even if the sum was clearly immune to attachment in law. The relevant reasoning is in these terms: "It is not the case of the Union of India that Union of India has any interest in the attached property so as to entitle Union of India to make an application under Order 21, Rule 58, C.P.C. In my opinion, if the attachment has been wrongly made it is for the judgment-debtor to make an application to the court for releasing the provident fund or the compulsory deposits from attachment." The Court also expressed the view that it was premature to hold "that attached money will fall within the definition of provident fund or compulsory deposit."
(3.) In fairness to the Subordinate Judge it must be said he did feel incline to agree that provident fund and compulsory deposits are not liable to any attachment under any defence or order of the civil court.;