An agent is not personally liable for contracts entered into on behalf of a disclosed principal, unless there is a contract to that effect or the principal falls within one of the exceptions enumerated in Section 230 of the Contract Act.

( 1 ) AN interim order was granted on 18-4-2001. Under the said interim order the bank account of the defendant/respondent No. 1 was attached to the extent of a sum of Rs. 37,89,000/ -. On behalf of the respondent No. 1 this interim order is sought to be vacated. The learned counsel wanted to make his submissions on the question of law. He did not want to use any affidavit. He sought to proceed on the basis of the materials on record. He submitted that on the face of the pleadings the interim order could not be maintained as against respondent No. 1. According to him, respondent No. 1 is only an agent of a known principal, being the Respondent No. 4. The real claim of the plaintiff is as against the principal. From the materials produced he had pointed out that the name of the principal, respondent No. 4 herein, is apparent and is known. As such no claim could be maintained as against the agent, in view of Section 230 of the Contract Act. He further contended that a bill of Lading is governed by a limitation of one year. The alleged transaction took place in January, 1998. Therefore, the suit presented sometimes in April, 2001, on the face of it, is barred by limitation. He then contends that Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not speak of any debt or a determined amount. In the present case, the amount is quantified and there is nothing to be determined. As such there cannot be any question of attachment before judgment. He further contends that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. The goods were shipped at Cochin and delivered at Dubai. Leave granted under Clause 12 should, therefore, be revoked.

( 2 ) ON the other hand the learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that by reason of Section 230 of the Contract Act the agent is equally liable. He then contended that Order 38 Rule 5 CPC does not make any distinction with regard to debt or ascertained sum. It is only when the conditions laid down under the Order 38 Rule 5 are satisfied an order of attachment can be issued. He also relied on Sections 23 and 28 of the Contract Act and contended that by reason thereof the suit is very much maintainable before this Court.

( 3 ) I have heard both the learned counsel at length.

( 4 ) THE reference to Sections 23 and 28 of the Contract Act, as pointed out on behalf of the petitioner, has no manner of application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Section 23 deals with the consideration or object of an agreement for the purpose of ascertaining its lawfullness. Section 28 deals with the Contract for reference to arbitration. Relying on the decision in the case of ABC Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A. P. Agencies Salem, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this case is not hit by the principal of either of Section 23 or of Section 28 of the Contract Act.

( 5 ) RELYING on the decision in the case of Smt. Smriti Jaiswal v. Romi Jaiswal, the petitioner contends that under Clause 12 of the letters patent when a part of the cause of action arise within the jurisdiction of this Court then the suit is maintainable before this Court. In the present case the forwarding of the documents through Allahabad Bank and its return through the same bank at Calcutta is also one of the part of the cause of action due to which the suit is maintainable under Clause 12.

( 6 ) BUT this question may not be relevant for our present purpose, since now the Court is not called upon to decide the question of revocation of leave granted under Clause 12. Once leave is granted under Clause 12 until revoked the same cannot be a consideration for the purpose of determining the continuation of interim order. Therefore, the citation of the decision in Smt. Smriti Jaiswal (supra) is not relevant for the present purpose.

( 7 ) ADMITTEDLY, the defendant No. 1 is the agent of the defendant No. 4 as is pleaded in this petition. But it is alleged that the defendant Nos. 1 and