JUDGMENT :

I.P. Mukerji, J.

1. This is an appeal from the judgment and order dated 18th October, 2012 made by a learned single judge of this court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The writ application was allowed.

2. Two points of great importance are raised in this matter.

3. The first and foremost relates to the territorial jurisdiction of this court to entertain the application.

4. The second relates to the power of the writ court in an undisputed contractual claim to compel a contracting party to make payment to the other contracting party, at the instance of the sub-contractor. In this process, the sub-contractor could expect payment from its principal, the other contracting party. The point regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this court could be well answered after discussion and adjudication of the second point.

5. The second point is this: The general law of contract is quite plain. A contract can only be enforced by one party to it against the other. Barring some exceptional circumstances, it cannot be enforced by a third party. This is known as the law of privity of contract.

6. The general law of contract would not have allowed IMECO’s claim for their dues arising ou