JUDGMENT Harington, J. - This is an application made on behalf of the trustees of a Provident Fund, created by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation for an order that it may be declared that a sum of Rs. 6,000 payable to one Gainsford is not liable to attachment. It appears that an action was brought against Gainsford and another man, in which the Plaintiff obtained an order calling upon Gainsford to show cause why the sum of Rs. 6,000 payable to him out of the Municipal Provident Fund should not be attached. I gather from what has been stated in the arguments that no cause was in fact shown; the present trustees were not parties to the rule and did not appear and the order was made to parte against Gainsford and the order prohibited the trustees from paying this sum of Rs. 6,000 either to Gainsford or to any other person. On receiving notice of that order the trustees come forward with the present application, the object of which is to remove that prohibitory order, on the ground that the sum in question is not liable to be attached. 2. Mr. Sinha, who appears for the applicants, rests his contention on two grounds. The first is that by virtue of the Statute Law, deposits in the Calcutta Municipal Provident Fund cannot be attached; and, secondly, that under the rules under which this Fund is regulated, when a notice of attachment is served on the trustees then the money standing to the credit of the subscriber against whom the attachment is issued, is ipso facto forfeited to the use of the Fund. 3. Mr. Mitter for the Plaintiff first objects that the applicants are not entitled to appear. I confess I do not accede to that argument. The Fund is in the hands of the applicants. There is a Regulation under which the applicants would be entitled, under certain circumstances, to refuse to pay that Fund to Gainsford and to deal with it as provided under Rule 23. I fail to see why the applicants should be debarred from asserting any claim that the trustees may have to this Fund as claimants to a Fund which has been improperly attached to answer the debt of Gainsford. 4. I fail to see why the applicants should be debarred from asserting any claim that the trustees may have to this Fund as claimants to a Fund which has been improperly attached to answer the debt of Gainsford. 4. It is a case in which the present claimants do not assert their claims as trustees for Gainsford but as trustees for other persons who become entitled on service of notice of attachment of the property to which Gainsford might have otherwise been entitled. In my opinion, to these Funds the trustees are as much entitled to assert their claim under the claim sections of the Code, as any other person claiming to be entitled to the Rs. 6,000 Fund in question. 5. Then the other argument, on which Mr. Mitter relies on the merits, is that the Act, on which Mr. Sinha relies, does not apply to the present Fund, because he says, it applies to compulsory deposits, and that there is nothing in the affidavits to show that this was not a voluntary deposit by Gainsford; moreover the Regulations by which the Fund is governed shew there were two kinds of deposits, that is, compulsory and voluntary deposits. 6. Now, para. G of the affidavit sets out that Gainsford used to contribute to the Fund under the Rules and Regulations to which the affidavit refers. These Rules and Regulations in cl. 5 contain a reference to a compulsory contribution of a sum equal to a 5 per cent, on the amount of the salary of the subscriber, they also provide in sub-cl. 2 that any subscriber may contribute by monthly instalments such further sum as he may think proper provided that the total amount thus voluntarily contributed in any one year does not exceed 5 per cent. upon his salary for such year. But both what is called a compulsory subscription under the Rules, and a voluntary subscription, are subject to the Rules and Regulations as to management of the Fund. 7. The word ' compulsory deposit' is defined in the Provident Funds Act (IX of 1897) and under sec. 2, sub-sec. upon his salary for such year. But both what is called a compulsory subscription under the Rules, and a voluntary subscription, are subject to the Rules and Regulations as to management of the Fund. 7. The word ' compulsory deposit' is defined in the Provident Funds Act (IX of 1897) and under sec. 2, sub-sec. 4, a 'compulsory deposit means a subscription or deposit which is not repayable on the demand or at the option of the subscriber or depositor and includes any contribution which may have been credited in respect of, and any interest or movement which may have accrued on, such subscription or deposit under the rules of the Fund. 8. These payments made by Gainsford, whether they are described under the Rules as voluntary or compulsory, or both, come within the definition given in sec. 2, sub-sec. 4 of the Act which I have just read. In my opinion, therefore, they are governed by that Act and by the amending Act, namely, Act IV of 1903. 9. It should be observed that these Acts do not of their own force apply to the Fund which is now the subject-matter of the present application, but a Notification was made on the 8th July 1902, under sec. 6 of the Provident Funds Act extending the provisions of the Act to the Provident Fund established by the Corporation of Calcutta, that is to say, extending it to the present Fund. That Act having been extended, the amending Act (IV of 1903) applies, and by sec. 2 of that Act the compulsory deposits are made ' not liable to any attachment under any decree or order of a Court in respect of any debt or liability incurred by a subscriber to, or depositor in, any such Fund and neither the Official Assignee nor a Receiver appointed under Chap. XXII of the CPC shall be entitled to, or have any claim on any such compulsory deposit.' 10. The effect of these Acts is in my opinion to prevent the Fund in the hands of the trustees being subject to attachment in respect of the debt by Gainsford to the person who is the Plaintiff and the result is, therefore, I think, this application must be allowed and the attachment removed. 11. The effect of these Acts is in my opinion to prevent the Fund in the hands of the trustees being subject to attachment in respect of the debt by Gainsford to the person who is the Plaintiff and the result is, therefore, I think, this application must be allowed and the attachment removed. 11. I desire to add that it has been stated that the notification which extended these Acts to the particular Fund in question was not brought to the notice of the Court when the order for attachment was made. It is stated at the bar that a search was made but, by some accident, the existence of the notification was not discovered, the consequence was that it was not brought to the notice of the Court and I have very little doubt that, if it had been brought to the notice of the Court, the order for attachment would never have been made. As it is my view that the statutes to which I have referred affect the Fund in question, it becomes unnecessary to discuss the questions raised by Mr. Mitter as to the construction of the Rules. The application for an order directing that the sum is not liable to be attached must be allowed with costs.