KHUDABADI BHAIBUND CO OPERATIVE CREDIT BANK LTD Vs. N S VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE five revisional applications raise a common question of law and relate to the interpretation of the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. It will be enough to state the facts of one case for the purpose of deciding the points at issue; in the other cases, names of the parties, the amounts due from the parties and the dates of the awards differ.

(2.) I will take Civil Revision Application No. 1408 of 1957. The petitioner-Bank is a displaced Bank and is recognized as such under Section 43 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951. Since it is a Co-operative Society, it is governed by the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925. The opponent Nos. 2 and 3 were indebted to the petitioner-Bank who proceeded under the Co-operative Societies Act and obtained an award against them for was sum of Rs. 6898-14-0. As large number of people migrated from one country to the other because of the division of India, Government had to make provision for displaced persons. Therefore the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950 being Act No. 44 of 1950, was placed on 18th May 1950 under which claims of displaced persons were verified. Under the Act powers were given to certain officers to verify the claims made by those persons in respect of property left by displaced persons in Pakistan. In accordance with these rules the claim of the opponents was verified at Rs. 34,000 by the duty constituted authority. It appears that under a scheme framed by the Government, some payments were made to some persons in settlement of their claims. After obtaining an award under the Co-operative Societies Act, the petitioner got a certificate from the Registrar which had the effect of making the award a decree for the purpose of execution. The petitioner thereafter filed an execution proceeding in the City Civil Court on 18th December 1953 and got a Garnishee Notice served on Opponent No. 1 as the Regional Settlement Commissioner, requiring him to hold the amount payable to opponents Nos. 2 and 3 until further orders of the court. This amount appears to be the amount determined as the amount of compensation payable to the opponents Nos. 2 and 3 in respect of their verified claim of Rs. 34,000.

(3.) ON 4th January 1954 on behalf of opponent No. 1 appearance was filed but no objection was taken to the Garnishee Notice. On 12th January 1956 a Notice was taken out under rule 175 of the City Civil Court Rules that moneys attached by the Garnishee Notice be brought to the Court. In reply, one Bhalchandra made an affidavit that interim compensation of Rs. 6,227 had been paid to the respondent. As no date of payment was given, the petitioner took out a Chamber Cummons for discovery and inspection. Mr. Rane says that the amount was paid on 6th March 1955. The learned Judge dismissed the Notice and the Chamber Summons holding that the amount due to opponents Nos. 2 and 3 was part of the compensation pool and therefore could not be attached and brought into Court. It is against this order that the present revisional application is brought to this Court. The other applications are also directed against similar orders.