JUDGMENT Banerjee and Pargiter, JJ. - This is a reference from the Munsif of Gobindapur exercising the powers of a Small Cause Court Judge, u/s 617 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which has been transmitted to this Court through the Judicial Commissioner of Chota Nagpur and the first question referred to us is, whether the salaries of Railway servants residing and working for gain and actually getting their pay within the local jurisdiction of a Court can be attached in execution of a Small Cause Court decree passed by such Court. 2. The learned Munsif is of opinion that the question should be answered in the affirmative and so it ought from one point of view, no doubt. If the attachment is made by the Small Cause Court at or about the time when the agent of the disbursing officer is going to hand the money to the Railway servants within the jurisdiction of that Court, the attachment would be valid, for it would then be an attachment of a debt due to the judgment-debtor made within the jurisdiction of the attaching Court, But if the attachment is of salary that has not actually fallen due and is made in the manner indicated in Section 268 of the CPC by a prohibitory order requiring the officer whose duty it is to disburse the salary, to withhold every month such portion as the Court may direct until the further orders of the Court, the attachment in such a case is attachment of a debt not of course actually due to the judgment-debtor, but anticipated to fall due to him, month by month, at the place where the disbursing officer has his office and such an attachment can be made only by the Court having jurisdiction at the place where the disbursing officer has his office. It would seem from the statement of facts in this reference that the attachment here was of this latter description and if that was so, the attachment was made in Calcutta, where the Munsif of Gobindapur has no jurisdiction. The view we take is in accordance with that taken by this Court in the case of Hossein Ally v. Ashotosh Gangoolly (1878) 3 C.L.R. 30 and by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Parbati Charan v. Panchanand ILR (1884) All. The view we take is in accordance with that taken by this Court in the case of Hossein Ally v. Ashotosh Gangoolly (1878) 3 C.L.R. 30 and by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Parbati Charan v. Panchanand ILR (1884) All. 243 and it is not really in conflict with that taken by this Court in the case of J. Hollick (1868) 2 B.L.R. (A.C.) 108 : 10 W.R. 447, because there the order was made by the Monghyr Court, within whose jurisdiction the disbursing officer's office was held, that office being held at Jamalpur. We may here observe that although the previous attaching order was made without jurisdiction, we understand from, the learned Counsel for the Railway Company that the money attached has not been paid to the judgment-debtor, but is still held in deposit and would be available for the decree-holder if only the attachment is made in due form by the decree being sent down for execution to the Calcutta Small Cause Court. 3. The second question in the reference has in effect been already answered, that question being whether in such cases such Court is competent to serve through the Small Cause Court, Calcutta, the attachment order named in paragraphs 4 and 5 of Section 268 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the disbursing officer having his office in the town of Calcutta and the said disbursing officer on receipt of such order is bound to give effect to the orders of the Court. It the attachment is of salary to fall due and is to be made in the manner indicated in Section 268, which we have already referred to, the attachment itself could not be made by the Gobindapur Small Cause Court without the decree being transferred for execution to the Court of Small Causes at Calcutta. 4. It the attachment is of salary to fall due and is to be made in the manner indicated in Section 268, which we have already referred to, the attachment itself could not be made by the Gobindapur Small Cause Court without the decree being transferred for execution to the Court of Small Causes at Calcutta. 4. The third question is whether "when the salary of a Railway servant working within the local jurisdiction of a Court has been ordered to be attached in execution of a Small Cause Court decree passed by such Court and when the disbursing officer has given effect to such attachment by recovering the decree money from a Railway servant and holding in deposit the same amount, such Court is competent to order the disbursing officer to pay the attached amount into the Court (to remit the amount by postal money-order) and if any such order is made and duly served upon such disbursing officer, whether the latter is bound to carry it out." 5. To the third question stated in the reference our answer is this: that the disbursing officer when he submitted to the order for attachment did so under a mistake of fact, namely, that the order had really emanated from the Calcutta Small Cause Court, which has jurisdiction in the matter. But when he was informed that the order did not really emanate from that Court, but proceeded from the Gobindapur Court, which has no jurisdiction over him, he was justified in not remitting the money to the Gobindapur Court. But as we are informed by the learned Counsel for the Railway Company and as we have already observed above, the money is still in deposit with the disbursing officer and will be available for the decree-holder if only the attachment is made in due form by the decree being transferred to the Small Cause Court at Calcutta for execution.