( 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 isonly 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 limitati