Sinha, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by the Union of India against an order of Banerjee J., dated 19-12-1949, dismissing an application made pro interesse suo on behalf of the Dominion of India. The only question involved in this appeal is whether a Receiver can be appointed by way of equitable execution in respect of money standing to the credit of a subscriber to a provident fund. The answer to the question depends on the construction of Section 3, Provident Funds Act, 1925 (XIX [19] of 1925). Banerjee J. held that a Receiver can be appointed in a suitable case over provident fund money.
(2.) The facts out of which this appeal arises may be shortly stated. On 30-7-1948, a decree was made by this Court in this suit in favour of Hira Debi for Rs. 3,317 with interest and costs. On 17-12-1948, the decree-holder applied for execution of the decree by appointment of a Receiver of the amount lying to the credit of the provident fund of the judgment-debtor, Ram Garhit Singh, with the Post Master General, Bengal Circle, and with the Deputy Accountant General, Posts and Telegraphs, Calcutta. The judgment, debtor was a clerk in the dead letter office and had retired in January 1947. On 1-2-1949, Banerjee J. made an order whereby the decree-holders' husband, Baramdeo Pandey, was appointed Receiver in execution of the said sum, subject to his furnishing security. No objection to the order has been raised on behalf of the judgment-debtor. On 16-9-1949, a summons was taken out on behalf of the Dominion of India for setting aside the order on the ground that it was invalid inasmuch as a Receiver cannot be appointed in respect of provident fund money.
(3.) Section 3, Provident Funds Act, is in the following terms : "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." The section provides that a compulsory deposit: (a) is not capable of being assigned or charged; (b) is not liable to attachment under any decree or order of any civil or criminal Court in respect of debt or liability incurred by a depositor; (c) cannot be claimed by the Official Assignee or a Receiver appointed under the Provincial Insolvency Act. It will be seen that the section does not in terms prohibit the appointment of a Receiver in execution over provident fund money. It is, however, submitted that the object of Section 3 is to prevent execution being levied on provident fund money, whether the execution takes the form of attachment or of appointment of a receiver in execution, and the section should be construed as including a prohibition to levy execution on provident fund money by the appointment of a receiver.;