JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner obtained a decree for money against the Opposite parry in the Court of Small Causes at Sealdah. It appears that the opposite party was formerly in the employ of Eastern Bengal State Railway but has now left the service of the Railway. 2. It further appears that there is a sum standing to his credit in the Railway Fund, a Fund governed by the provisions of the Provident Funds Act, 1897. At the petitioner's instance the Small Cause Court Judge caused this sum to be attached in execution. 3. Subsequently however on the 22nd July, 1921, the learned Judge made an order withdrawing the attachment on the ground that under the Act, money in the fund was not attachable. 4. Thereupon the petitioner applied to this Court and this Rule was issued calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order of the 22nd July should not be set aside and the attachment maintained. 5. The learned Judge before whom the Rule first came directed that the papers should be laid before the senior Government Pleader with a request that he should obtain for the Court a copy of the Rules of The Fund and information as to a statement made by the petitioner in his petition in reference to R. 10 of the Rules. 6. Accordingly when the Rule came on for hearing before us, the senior Government Pleader appeared and supplied us with a copy of the Rule of the Fund, He further confirmed the petitioner's statement as to the terms of the present R. 10. 7. The learned Vakil however also said that he had merely obtained this information in compliance with the request of the Court and that he was not in a position to offer any assistance to the Court as to the effect of the Provident Funds Act one way or the other. 8. The Opposite party did not appear either in person or by any learned Vakil. 9. The result is that while the petitioner's case was presented to us, we have not had the advantage of hearing argument on the other side. 10. R. 10, it seems, was modified in 1919. 8. The Opposite party did not appear either in person or by any learned Vakil. 9. The result is that while the petitioner's case was presented to us, we have not had the advantage of hearing argument on the other side. 10. R. 10, it seems, was modified in 1919. The Rule is headed "Withdrawals on Retirement" and as it now stands runs as follow: The amount which accumulates to the credit of a subscriber in permanent employ will, when he quits the service be come his property, and will be handed over to him unless the. Account Officer has received notice of an attachment, assignment, or encumbrance affecting the disposal of the amount or any portion of it. Should such notice have been received the Account Officer will hand ever to the subscriber only that portion of the amount which is not effected by the attachment, assignment, or encumbrance and shall obtain the orders of the Comptroller and Auditor General, as. Administrator of the fund, regarding the disposal of the balance. 11. The question whether money standing to the credit of a depositor alter his retirement can be attached before withdrawal, seems to depend on the true meaning of the expressions' compulsory deposit, as defined in the Act. 12. No formal notice of the Rule before us has been given to the Comptroller and Auditor General in his capacity as Administrator of this Fund, and in our opinion it is undesirable that we should decide an important question of law with, out giving that officer an opportunity of being heart, if he so desires. 13. On the other hand R. 10 of the Rules of the Fund, as it stands, seems to be, so far as it goes, in the petitioners favour and Opposite party has not appeared to show cause. 14. On consideration our order in the circumstances is that the Rule before us be made absolute and the attachment originally issued be maintained or if it has been withdrawn, be reissued, subject, however, to liberty being reserved to the Comptroller and Auditor General, as Administrator of the Fund, to move this Court to discharge the present order and to make such other or further order as it may think fit. 15. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. We assess the hearing-fee at three gold mohurs. 16. Let the order be sent down without delay. 15. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. We assess the hearing-fee at three gold mohurs. 16. Let the order be sent down without delay. Rule made absolute.