Calcutta High Court
Calcutta Trades Association vs Ryland on 17 September, 1896
Equivalent citations: (1897)ILR 24CAL102
JUDGMENT Sale, J.
1. This is an application for an attachment of the pay of a Military Officer in execution of a decree.
2. I have been furnished with a note by the Registrar, Mr. Belchambers, which gives, I think, a correct view of the present state of the law on the subject. It would appear that while the pay of an Officer of the regular forces is not liable to attachment the pay of an officer of the Indian Staff Corps is liable to attachment, the reason for the distinction between the two cases being that an Officer of the Staff Corps is a Public Officer within the meaning of Clause (h), of Section 266 of the Civil Procedure Code read with the Interpretation Clause, whereas an Officer of the regular forces is not.
3. The defendant, Major Ryland, who is described as "Assistant Commissary General, Allahabad," is, I understand, an Officer of the Staff Corps, but it appears that in another suit a decree has been obtained against him by which, under Section 151 of the Army Act, half his pay was ordered to be deducted and applied in satisfaction of the amount due under the decree. Section 151 has since been repealed, but the repeal of that section, as pointed out in Mr. Belchambers' note, does not affect a decree previously passed under it. The right to enforce such a decree in the manner therein provided continues, until full satisfaction has been obtained.
4. The attachment asked for may be made, but it must be subject to the decree to which I have referred, and its operation must be restricted to pay which the defendant receives from Government.