CHAKRAVARTTI, C. J.

( 1 ) AT the earlier stages of the argument on this Rule, it appeared as if a broad question of fundamental importance would have to be decided, but a closer examination of the record revealed that the point actually calling for decision was a far narrower one.

( 2 ) THE facts are these: Messrs. R. K. Das and Co. , who are opposite party No. 2 to this Rule, obtained a building contract from Government in connection with the construction of the Mint and had to make a deposit of Rs. 50,000/- as security for the due execution of the contract. In connection with that undertaking, Messrs. R. K. Das and Co. , obtained a supply of building materials from the petitioners, Messrs, Builders Supply Corporation. The petitioners appear to have been unable' to obtain payment for the goods supplied and they Drought a suit for the recovery of their dues, tin that suit, they obtained an order for an attachment before judgment of Rs. 5,000/- out of the security deposit of Rs. 50,000/- made by Messrs. R. K. Das of Co. , and lying in the hands of the Superinceriaing Engineer, Calcutta Central Circle No. 1. The order for attachment was made on 18-4-1949 and the attachment was in d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document