JOSEPH GEORGE Vs. COCHIN SANITARY WARES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal arises from an order in execution. First respondent obtained a decree against the 2nd respondent in O.S. 199/1976 before Sub Court, Ernakulam. In execution of the decree amount due to 2nd respondent from the Government as per contract work was attached. Appellant filed E.A. 811/1978 under R.58 of O.21 alleging that the amount due from Government belongs to him under the power-of-attorney executed by the 2nd respondent. By that power defendant had authorised appellant to act in his name and on his behalf and to receive payment due under the contract. The power is irrevocable till the whole of the work is completed in accordance with the agreement and until the settlement and disbursement of all claims in connection with the work is completed. It is alleged that on the date of attachment the amount was due to appellant even though the contract stood in the name of the defendant. He wanted the attachment to be raised.

(2.) The executing court rejected the claim petition finding that the power-of-attorney only authorises the claimant to do the work for and on behalf of the contractor and that he has no independent right over the amount due from the Government. It was also noticed that the power-of-attorney had been revoked by the defendant. Aggrieved by that order the claimant has come up in appeal.

(3.) Heard counsel on both sides. It is urged by learned counsel for the appellant that the court below has not considered the effect of the various provisions contained in the power-of-attorney and the question of law on that aspect. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent questions the maintainability of the claim petition on account of the dismissal of a claim petition during the pendency of the suit. On the contentions raised by the counsel the following points arise for consideration: