IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 38234 of 2007(B) -------------------------- AGAINST E.A. 143/06 IN E.P. 9/01 IN OS.47/2000 of SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ CHELLAPPAN APPU, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, AGED PRADEEP NIVAS, PANACHAMOODU, VELLARADA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENT: ------------- P.SURENDRAN SWAMI, KURISUMALA, CHARIVUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, AMBOORI VILLAGE, KOVILLOOR DESOM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 38234 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 1st day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Neyyattinkara, in E.A 143/06 in E.P. 9/01 in O.S. 47/00. It was an application for attachment of Provident Fund due to the judgment debtor, which is now in the hands of the Managing Director, Vaikundam Agrotech Ltd. 2. Learned counsel argues for the position that the amount cannot be attached since there is a specific bar provided under Section 10 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. The High Court of Madras had considered this point in the decision reported in Sathiyabama v. Palanisamy [2004 (3) KLT 53 SN 72]. This decision has not been brought to the notice of the learned Subordinate Judge and the implications therein has not been considered by the court below. Since the other side has not entered appearance before this court, I feel it proper to set aide the order passed by the court below and direct the said court to consider the matter afresh in the light of the decision refereed to above, after WPC NO 38234/07 2 hearing both sides. Needless to say both sides are at liberty to canvas all points, which they want to raise in support and against attachment. Therefore the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the court below with a direction to consider it afresh. The writ petitioner is directed to appear before the court below on 1.2.08 and the court below is directed to give notice to the decree holder, fix a date and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC NO 38234/07 3